GIFT  OF 
ETcivvm    ovvvfi'  ZBaIcK 


MOUNT  MCKINLEY 


ANB 


MOUNTAIN  CLIMBERS'  PROOFS 


OTHER  WORKS  BY  THE  AUTHOR. 


Mountain  Exploration Bull.  Geog.  Club  of  Phila.,  1893. 

The  Highest  Mountain  Ascent,  etc Pop.  Sci.  Mon.,  1895. 

Ascents  near  Saas Appalachia,  1896. 

Ice  Cave  Hunting  in  Central  Europe "         1897. 

Reminiscences  ot  Tyrol "  1898. 

High  Mountain  Ascents "         1909. 

Ice  Caves  and  the  Causes  of  Subterranean  Ice J.  Franklin  Ins.,  1897. 

Subterranean  Ice  Deposits  in  America "  1899. 

Antarctica:  A  History  of  Antarctic  Discovery "  1901. 

Roman  and  Prehistoric  Remains  in  Central  Germany         "  1903. 

Antarctica  Addenda "  1904. 

Savage  and  Civilized  Dress "  1904. 

Develop  the  Submarine "  1909. 

Antarctic  Exploration Sci.  Am.  Sup.,  1902. 

Termination  Land Nat.  Geog.  Mag.,  1904. 

Arctic  Expeditions  sent  from  the  American  Colonies. 

Penn.  Mag.  H.  &  B.,  1907. 

Art  in  America  before  the  Revolution Soc.  Col.  Wars,  1908. 

Art  and  Ethnology Proc.  Am.  Phil.  Soc,  1907. 

Why  America  should  Re-explore  Wilkes  Land..     «      «        «        «     1909. 

Wilkes'  Antarctic  Discoveries Science,  1911. 

The  Highest  Mountain  Ascent Bull.  Am.  Geog.  Soc,  1904. 

Crocker  Land «      «        a        «     I907. 

Stonington  Antarctic  Explorers «       «         "      ."      1909. 

Charcot's  Antarctic  Explorations " "       "         "         "1911. 

PalmerLand «      «        «        «     ign, 

Hudson  Land «      «        «        «     jgu^ 

Antarctic  Names «      a        «        «     ^g^g. 

etc. 


Mount  McKinley 

and 

Mountain   Climbers'   Proofs 


BY 
EDWIN  SWIFT  BALCH 


Author  of 

Glaci^res  or  Freezing  Caverns,  1900 

Antarctica,  1902 

Comparative  Art,  1906 

The  North  Pole  and  Bradley  Land,  1913 


PHILADELPHIA 

CAMPION  AND  COMPANY. 

1914 


5 /a  / 


^^6^ 

1^^^ 


Copyright,  1914,  by 
EDWIN  SWIFT  BALCH 


PRESS   OF 

ALLEN,  LANE  &  SCOTT 

PHILADELPHIA 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


rAoa 

I.    Mountain  Climbers'  Proofs .  7-29 

II.     The  Deadly  Parallel 31-63 

III.  Mount  Denial 65-97 

IV.  Comparisons 99-125 

V.    Conclusions 127-130 

Index 131-142 


MOUOT^  McKINLEY 

AND 

MOUNTAIN  CLIMBEBS'  PROOFS. 


I. 

MOUNTAIN  CLIMBERS'  PROOFS. 
Mountain  ascents  were  few  and  far  between 
before  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  A.  D. 
Occasionally  only,  some  solitary  individual  became 
sufficiently  interested  in  some  mountain  or  other 
to  try  to  reach  its  summit.  The  great  public  took 
no  interest  whatever  in  mountains.  With  the  in- 
creasing congestion  of  population  in  huge  cities, 
however,  it  became  more  and  more  usual  for  people 
to  take  breathing  spells  in  the  country,  and  some 
of  these  persons  found  their  legs  a  pleasant  means 
of  locomotion.  In  time  it  was  discovered  that 
rocky  fastnesses  offer  specially  favorable  ground 
for  stretching  the  muscles  of  the  lower  limbs,  and 
certain  men  began  to  try  to  reach  craggy  or  snowy 
summits  as  a  relaxation  and  a  sport.  The  num- 
ber of  these  men  increased.  Finally,  between 
1856  to  1858,  the  English  Alpine  Club  was  formed,  ^ 
and  following  this  example,  other  Alpine  Clubs 
were  gradually  founded. 

^William  Longman:  "Modern  Mountaineering  and  the 
History  of  the  Alpine  Club":  The  Alpine  Journal,  1878, 
bound  with  Vol.  VIII,  pages  83-94. 


8  MOUNT  Mckinley 

The  number  of  persons  interested  in  mountain- 
eering increased  by  leaps  and  bounds  in  the  latter 
half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  with  the  steady 
expansion  of  mountain-club  memberships,  there 
grew  up  an  increasing  desire  to  make  first  ascents, 
that  is,  to  be  the  first  person  to  tread  on  a  virgin 
peak.  After  all  the  big  peaks  of  the  European 
Alps  were  ascended,  European  climbers  who  could 
go  no  farther  afield  began  to  ascend  smaller  peaks, 
until  to  day  the  merest  rocklet  is  sought  out  in  the 
search  for  novelty.  Climbers  with  larger  bank 
accounts  turned  their  attention  to  big  peaks  in  all 
parts  of  the  world.  The  Rocky  Mountains,  the 
Andes,  the  Caucasus,  the  New  Zealand  Alps,  the 
African  snowy  ranges,  the  Himalaya,  all  have  been 
attacked  and  some  of  their  peaks  at  least  have 
borne  the  imprint  of  hobnailed  shoes. 

As  a  rule,  the  reports  of  the  ascents  of  mountains 
have  been  accepted  as  veracious  by  the  moun- 
taineering fraternity.  Occasionally,  however,  there 
has  been  trouble  and  quarrels  about  whether  Mr. 
So  and  So  did  or  did  not  ascend  Peak  Such  and 
Such;  and  in  all  such  controversies  the  non-moun- 
taineering portion  of  mankind  has  not  taken  the 
slightest  interest.  The  reason  for  this  is,  perhaps, 
that  the  ascent  of  a  mountain  is  a  trivial  thing  to 
men  in  general.  The  exploration  of  a  big  range  of 
mountains,  the  surveying  and  charting  of  a  num- 
ber of  high  peaks,  may  be  a  matter  of  some  im- 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  9 

portance  as  a  work  of  exploration,  in  opening  new 
districts  and  widening  knowledge  of  the  earth. 
But  the  ascent  of  the  average  mountain  at  the  most 
amounts  to  being  only  a  tiny  fragment  of  geo- 
graphical discovery. 

But  altho  of  no  interest  to  the  general  public, 
mountain  ascents  are  of  absorbing  interest  to  the 
coterie  of  mountain  climbers.  For  however  un- 
important ascents  may  be  in  themselves,  still  first 
ascents  are  a  small  part  of  the  great  subject  of  the 
discovery  of  the  world.  And  they  are  the  part 
which  mountain  climbers  think  about.  Every  new 
ascent  is  one  link  in  the  entire  chain  of  mountain 
history,  and  every  new  ascent  reduces  the  field  a 
trifle  for  other  climbers.  Moreover,  mountain 
climbers  are  desirous  to  have  the  history  of  moun- 
tain climbing  accurate,  and  thus  it  comes  about 
that  a  good  deal  of  time  and  effort  is  devoted  to 
getting  all  the  attainable  facts  about  the  ascents  of 
the  various  peaks. 

When  now  one  considers  the  immense  amount  of 
literature  extant  about  mountains,  and  the  fact 
that  a  certain  number  of  ascents  have  been  denied 
and  the  climbers  doubted,  it  seems  passing  strange 
that  so  little  has  been  written  about  the  proper 
methods  of  solving  disputed  ascents.  Many  as- 
cents have  been  examined  into,  the  evidence  ana- 
lyzed, and  in  time  some  sort  of  satisfactory  result 
reached,  yet  but  little  has  been  done  so  far  in  dis- 


10  MOUNT  Mckinley 

cussing  collectively  the  various  points  which  may 
be  taken  into  account  in  any  attempt  to  get  at  the 
truth  in  regard  to  mountain  climbs.  To  the  best 
of  my  knowledge,  the  mountaineering  world  still 
needs  a  thoroly  philosophical  study  of  this  special 
subject.  And  some  day  perhaps  some  elaborate 
treatise  may  fill  the  lacuna. 

But  why  should  the  reports  of  climbers  be  dis- 
believed in?  Why  should  otherwise  respectable 
persons  be  doubted  if  they  assert  they  have  been 
up  some  mountain?  And  the  answer  is  that  vari- 
ous causes  contribute  sometimes  towards  discredit- 
ing mountain  climbers.  Hesitation  to  accept  travel- 
ers' tales,  ignorance  of  mountains  and  mountain- 
eering, and  jealousy  may  be  mentioned  as  perhaps 
chief  among  these  causes.  Much  of  the  disbelief 
originates  among  the  natives  dwelling  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  peaks.  It  is  a  universal  character- 
istic— found  in  Switzerland,  in  Tyrol,  in  the 
Caucasus,  at  Mount  Ararat,  in  the  Himalayas,  in 
the  Andes,  and  now  in  Alaska — of  the  humans 
inhabiting  the  plains  and  valleys  near  great  peaks 
whose  ascent  they  have  not  themselves  made,  to 
assert  that  others  also  have  not  made  the  ascent. 
These  assertions  sometimes  convince  other  per- 
sons who  do  not  live  in  the  locality  and  gradually 
spread  to  a  wider  and  wider  circle. 

That  the  natives  of  mountain  districts  fre- 
quently exhibit  ignorance  and  distrust  about  the 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS.  11 

ascents  of  the  peaks  round  their  own  valleys  and 
that  this  distrust  slowly  spreads  to  other  localities 
was  forcibly  brought  home  to  me  by  an  occurrence 
which  happened  about  one  of  my  own  climbs. 
On  the  26th  of  June,  1882,  I  made  the  second  or 
third  ascent  and  first  traverse,  ascending  by  the 
south  arete  and  descending  by  the  north  ar^te,  of 
the  Portienhorn,  or  Portiengrat,  or  Pizzo  d'Andolla, 
12,010  feet,  which  rises  on  the  Swiss-Italian  fron- 
tier between  the  Saas  Thai  and  the  Val  d'Antrona. 
My  guides,  Franz  Burgener  and  Alois  Anthamatten, 
assured  me  that  they  knew  of  no  previous  ascent. 
As  far  also  as  I  have  been  able  to  learn  since,  at  the 
time  of  our  ascent,  no  record  of  any  previous  ascent 
had  been  published.  On  writing  for  information  to 
the  editor  of  The  Alpine  Journal,  he  informed  me 
that  the  Portienhorn  had  been  ascended  some 
years  before,  and  also  published  the  following  brief 
note  of  my  ascent:  ''The  same  party  also  made 
the  first  ascent  of  the  second  peak  of  thePortien 
Grat".^  Though  why  he  should  credit  me  with 
the  first  ascent  of  the  second  peak  of  the  Portien- 
horn is  not  apparent,  since  there  is  no  second  peak 
of  the  Portienhorn! 

I  did  not  publish  any  account  of  this  ascent 
until  1896,  when  I  did  so  in  an  article  entitled 
''Ascents  near  Saas."^      In   1900,   I  published  a 

^The  Alpine  Journal^  1882,  Vol.  XI,  page  117. 
^Appalachia,  Vol.  VIII,  pages  167-164. 


12  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

book  called  Gladhres  or  Freezing  Caverns  and  in  it 
described,  among  other  caves,  the  Schafloch,  above 
the  Lake  of  Thoune.  A  Swiss  climber  wrote  tome 
about  this,  and  our  correspondence  led  to  my 
sending  him  a  copy  of  ''Ascents  near  Saas".  He 
wrote  me  almost  by  return  mail  a  letter  saying  how 
pleased  he  was  with  its  contents,  because  Burgener 
and  Anthamatten  had  claimed  for  many  years 
that  they  had  ascended  the  Portienhorn,  and  that 
no  one  had  believed  them.  My  quite  unintentional 
testimony  thus  fortunately  eventually  vindicated 
these  two  worthy  fellows'  veracity. 

Some  of  the  early  high  ascents  were  disbelieved 
in,  because  of  the  universal  consensus  of  opinion 
that  man  could  not  reach  such  altitudes  on  account 
of  the  rarefied  air.  Such  was  the  case,  for  instance, 
in  regard  to  the  ascent  in  1865  of  peak  E.  61,  23,890 
feet,  in  the  Kuen  Lun,  by  Mr.  W.  H.  Johnson,  of 
the  Indian  Survey.  His  account  of  the  ascent  was 
never  published,  and  it  seems  almost  certain,  from 
Dr.  Longstaff's  investigations,  that  General  Walker, 
Mr.  Johnson's  chief,  disbelieving  in  the  possi- 
bility of  anyone  reaching  an  altitude  of  23,890  feet, 
simply  suppressed  Mr.  Johnson's  report.* 

Mr.  W.  W.  Graham's  successful  ascent  in  1883 
of  Kabru,  24,015  feet,  in  the  Sikhim  Himalaya  is 
another  famous  instance  of  disbelief  in  a  climber.*'^ 

*  The  Alpine  Jmirnal,  1909,  Vol.  XXIV,  page  133. 
^  The  Alpine  Journal,  1886,  Vol.  XII,  pages  25-52. 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  13 

Graham  was  violently  abused,  principally  by  some 
Anglo-Indian  travelers,  who  displayed  a  bitter  jeal- 
ousy of  him  and  a  total  ignorance  of  mountain- 
eering. One  critic  attacked  him  for  crediting 
himself  with  the  ascent  of  Pandim,  which  Graham 
looked  at  only  from  a  distance  and  described  as  a 
peak  of  extraordinary  difficulty.  Another  critic 
said  Graham  could  not  have  climbed  Kabru,  be- 
cause ''no  amount  of  skill  and  experience  can  avoid 
the  almost  certain  consequences  of  an  attempt  to 
clamber  over  sharp  ledges  of  rock,  and  of  the  yield- 
ing of  the  snow-coating  that  covers  over  a  concealed 
crevasse".®  The  public  verdict  was  that  no  one 
could  breathe  at  24,000  feet  and  therefore  that 
Mr.  Graham  could  not  have  made  the  ascent. 
Nevertheless  a  few  years  ago  Messrs.  Rubenson  and 
Monrad-Aas  made  a  second  ascent  of  Kabru,  ^ 
and  only  the  other  day  the  Duke  of  the  Abruzzi 
reached  24,600  feet  on  Bride's  Peak.* 

Occasionally  disbelief  in  ascents  originates  from 
ascents  having  been  made  at  different  seasons  of 
the  year.  A  high  mountain  side  or  a  high  moun- 
tain top  is  often  different  at  the  end  of  June  from 
what  it  is  at  the  beginning  of  September.  The 
June  traveler  may  perhaps  find  a  mountain  wholly 

^The  Alpine  Journal,  1886,  Vol.  XII,  page  100. 
^The  Alpine  Journal,  1909,  Vol.  XXIV,  pages  310-321. 
^Filippo  de  Filippi:    Karakoram  and  Western  Himalaya, 
1912. 


14  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

snow  covered  while  the  September  traveler  may 
perhaps  find  bare  rocks  sticking  up  thru  the  snow. 
Their  accounts  of  the  details  of  their  experiences 
necessarily  vary  and  are  colored  by  small  circum- 
stances which  were  at  variance  largely  owing  to 
the  different  months  of  the  year.  Thereupon 
ignorant  critics  sometimes  claim  that  one  or  the 
other  of  the  travelers  manufactured  his  narrative; 
that  both  narratives  cannot  be  genuine. 

That  the  character  of  a  mountain  climb  may  be 
greatly  altered  by  the  season  of  the  year  may  be 
shown  by  the  following  instance  drawn  partly  from 
my  own  experience.  Mr.  Thomas  Brooksbank,  on 
the  1st  of  September,  1874,  crossed  the  Rossboden- 
joch  from  Simplon  to  Saas.  In  his  account,^  he 
speaks  almost  entirely  of  rocks:  ''Half  an  hour 
across  the  glacier,  and  we  were  at  the  foot  of  those 
precipices,  sheer  up  which  we  climbed,  hand  and 
foot,  for  exactly  two  hours  and  a  quarter.  The 
rocks  were  very  steep  and  here  as  at  the  Laquin 
Joch  there  are  always  '  schauerliche  Abgrunden'; 
but  with  a  steady  head  and  a  plentiful  allowance 
of  time,  there  ought  to  be,  there  can  be,  no  danger. 
Yet  there  is  some  difficulty,  and  one  almost  sheer 
cliff,  which,  by  comparing  it  with  the  length  of 
rope  we  were  using,  we  took  to  be  40  feet,  cost  us 
a  good  half  hour  *  *  *.  The  rest  of  our  climb 
was  only  fair  work.    At  half  past  10  we  had  sur- 

^  The  Alpine  Journal,  1875,  Vol.  VII,  page  133. 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  15 

mounted  the  precipice,   and  were  level  with  the 
Gamser  Glacier,  high  above  its  icefall." 

On  the  22nd  of  June,  1882,  I  followed  Mr. 
Brooksbank's  track  across  the  Rossbodenjoch.  My 
own  account,  written  down  the  next  day  but  pub- 
lished only  in  1896,^°  reads  quite  differently  from 
Mr.  Brooksbank's  account.  We  had  far  more 
snow:  ''There  was  a  big  couloir,  but  the  guides 
declined  it,  as  the  snow  was  in  bad  order,  and 
turned  to  some  stiff  rocks  in  preference.  At  the 
top  of  the  rocks  we  struck  a  snow  slope  with  more 
steep  rocks  above.  The  state  of  the  snow  bothered 
us  a  great  deal,  and  little  avalanches  were  per- 
petually tumbling  down  during  the  ascent.  *  *  * 
Then  we  got  on  well  enough  for  a  while  *  *  * 
until  the  rocks  overhung.  We  sat  on  a  little  bit 
of  a  ledge.  A  narrow  and  exceedingly  steep  couloir 
came  down  beside  us  and  must  be  crossed  *  *  *, 
After  the  successful  passage  of  this  exceedingly 
mauvais  pas,  we  had  another  terrifically  steep, 
nasty,  and  wet  snow  slope.  While  taking  breath, 
I  said  to  Burgener  'How  can  you  always  tell  about 
the  snow  being  safe,'  and  he  replied  'If  I  could 
not,  I  should  have  died  at  least  two  hundred  times 
already'".  It  is  obvious  that  Mr.  Brooksbank  and 
I  both  must  have  aimed  for  the  lowest  gap  between 
the  Rossbodenhorn  and  the  Rau thorn,  and  there- 
fore that  our  routes  must  have  been  nearly  the 

^°  Appalachia,  Vol.  VIII,  pages  159,  160. 


16  MOUNT  Mckinley 

same,  and  yet,  owing  to  the  difference  in  snow 
conditions  due  to  the  difference  in  the  time  of  the 
year,  our  narratives  certainly  do  not  read  alike. 

Jealousy  and  envy  have  been  in  certain  cases 
the  underlying  motives  in  discrediting  first  ascents 
or  in  giving  credit  to  the  wrong  person.  Chief 
among  such  ascents  is  the  first  ascent  of  Mont 
Blanc.  The  great  Swiss  scientist  de  Saussure  gave 
the  first  impulse  for  its  ascent.  He  visited  Chamonix 
in  1760  and  1761,  and  offered  a  large  reward  to 
any  one  who  should  discover  a  route  to  the  summit. 
Numerous  attempts  to  ascend  the  mountain  were 
made,  several  by  guides  without  travelers,  two  by 
Mr.  Bourrit,  and  one  by  de  Saussure  and  Bourrit. 
Finally  Mont  Blanc  was  ascended  on  the  7th  of 
August,  1786,  by  Dr.  Francois  Paccard  and 
Jacques  Balmat."  Every  detail  usually  accepted 
about  this  first  ascent  is  wrong.  And  the  accepted 
version  is  so  different  from  the  reality  that  a 
brief  resum^  of  the  matter  should  be  instructive. 

The  accepted  version  gives  all  the  credit  of  the 
ascent  to  the  guide  Jacques  Balmat  and  makes 
his  companion  Dr.  Paccard  into  a  feeble-bodied 
weakling.  Balmat  is  said  to  have  discovered  the 
route  and  to  have  asked  Paccard  to  accompany 
him.    When  nearly  at  the  top  Paccard  is  supposed 

^^ William  Longman:  "Modern  Mountaineering  and  the 
History  of  the  Alpine  Club":  The  Alpine  Journal,  1878, 
bound  with  Vol.  VIII,  pages  5,  6. 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  17 

to  have  become  so  exhausted  that  he  dropped  on 
to  the  snow  and  that  Balmat  arrived  first  alone  at 
the  summit.  Nevertheless,  when  Balmat  returned 
to  Paccard,  he  took  hold  of  him  and  by  main  force 
literally  dragged  him  to  the  summit.  The  next 
day  the  doctor  is  said  to  have  been  so  completely 
snow  blind  that  he  entered  Chamonix  hanging  on 
to  the  strap  of  his  guide's  knapsack. 

The  reality  was  far  different.  For  Paccard  and 
Balmat  were  watched  from  Chamonix  thru  a 
telescope  by  Baron  von  Gersdorf,  a  German  traveler 
of  repute.  He  saw  them  at  the  Petits  Rochers 
Rouges,  then  ''from  there  they  started  again  at 
5.45,  rested  at  about  every  hundred  steps  always 
for  a  moment,  changed  several  times  the  leader- 
ship, at  6.12  arrived  at  two  little  rocks  sticking  out 
of  the  snow,  and  at  6.23  reached  the  highest  sum- 
mit". Von  Gersdorf  not  only  wrote  this  account 
down  in  his  diary,  but  he  and  his  traveling  com- 
panion, von  Meyer,  at  the  request  of  Dr.  Paccard's 
father,  a  notary  at  Chamonix,  signed  a  certificate, 
which  is  still  preserved  at  Chamonix,  giving  an 
account  of  what  they  had  seen.  Far  from  Balmat 
being  a  hero  and  Paccard  a  cretin,  all  the  evidence 
tends  to  show  that  Paccard  was  the  leader  thru- 
out.  But  only  von  Gersdorf  and  his  spyglass 
saved  the  truth  from  oblivion. 

All  the  rubbish  of  the  accepted  version  originated 
with  a  man,   Marc  Theodore  Bourrit,  who  tried 


18         ♦  MOUNT  McKINLEY 

to  make  the  first  ascent  of  Mont  Blanc.  Dis- 
appointed in  his  attempts  and  actuated  by  envy 
and  jealousy,  Bourrit  went  to  work  and  by  skil- 
ful writings  succeeded  in  damaging  Paccard  suffi- 
ciently to  prevent  Paccard  from  obtaining  subscrip- 
tions for  a  narrative  of  his  ascent.  Later,  in  1832, 
Alexandre  Dumas  interviewed  old  Balmat  and 
out  of  Balmat's  garbled  reminiscences  and  Bourrit's 
vaporizings,  constructed  a  narrative  h  la  Monte 
Christo  which  gained  universal  credence.  It  is 
thanks  to  several  mountain  historians,  chief  among 
them  Dr.  Heinrich  Diibi,  Mr.  Montagnier,  Mr. 
Mathews,  Mr.  Gribble  and  Mr.  Freshfield,  that  the 
truth  about  the  first  ascent  of  Mont  Blanc  has 
recently  been  established  and  the  fogs  which 
obscured  it  so  long  have  been  swept  away.  ^^ 

It  occasionally  happens  also,  fortunately  but 
rarely,  that  the  climbers  who  make  the  second  or 
third  ascent  of  a  mountain  empirically  assert 
that  their  predecessors  did  not  reach  the  real  top. 
Such  was  the  case,  for  instance,  about  the  first 
ascent  of  the  difficult  Piz  Roseg,  in  the  Engadine. 
This  was  climbed  by  Messrs.  A.  W.  Moore  and 
Horace  Walker  with  the  first-rate  guide  Jakob 
Anderegg  in  1865,  and  a  full  account  of  their  ascent 
was  pubHshed  in  1867.^^    In  the  face  of  this.  Dr. 

^^The  Alpine  Journal,  1913,  Vol.  XXVII,  pages  202-209. 
"  The  Alpine  Journal,  1867,  Vol.  Ill,  pages  19-24. 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS.  19 

Paul  Giissfeldt,  an  excellent  climber,  who  ascended 
Piz  Roseg  in  1869,  asserted,  in  an  account  of  his 
ascent  published  in  1870,  that  Jakob  Anderegg 
alone  reached  the  summit,  and  that  Messrs.  Moore 
and  Walker  only  reached  a  secondary  summit, 
some  distance  from  the  main  summit.^* 

Another  example  of  this  peculiar  form  of  mental 
mountain  sickness,  which  sometimes  follows  a  suc- 
cessful ascent,  happened  in  regard  to  the  Grand 
Teton  in  Wyoming,  probably  the  hardest  climb 
outside  of  Alaska  in  the  United  States.  The  Grand 
Teton  was  climbed  in  1872  by  Captain  James 
Stevenson  and  the  Hon.  Nathaniel  P.  Langford, 
one  of  the  founders  of  the  Yellowstone  National 
Park.  A  full  account  of  the  ascent  was  published 
by  Mr.  Langford,  and  this  account  rings  true.  ^^ 
Mr.  Langford  says  positively  that  they  ''stepped 
upon  the  highest  point  of  the  Grand  Teton." 
And  strange  to  say,  they  found  near  the  top  an 
enclosure,  evidently  man's  handiwork,  of  granite 
slabs  much  disintegrated,  this  showing  great  age; 
but  who  made  this  enclosure  is  unknown.  The 
peak  was  climbed  again  in  1898  by  Mr.  W.  O. 
Owen,  who  empirically  denied  that  Messrs.  Stev- 
enson and  Langford  had  reached  the  top,  but  whose 
account    nevertheless,    in    every   respect    and    im- 

"  The  Alpine  Journal,  1872,  Vol.  V,  pages  373,  374. 

^^"The  Ascent  of  Mount  Hayden,"  Scribner's  Monthly, 
June,  1873,  pages  129-157. 


20  MOUNT  McKINLEY 

portant  detail,  entirely  corroborates  all  the  state- 
ments of  Mr.  Langford.^^ 

In  examining  into  the  proofs  about  ascents,  it 
will  be  found,  I  think,  that,  leaving  the  personality 
and  veracity  of  the  climbers  out  of  the  question, 
there  are  comparatively  few  evidences  which  can  be 
presented  which  afford  absolute,  mathematical  proof. 

In  a  former  work  I  made  the  statement  that 
''The  ascent  of  Mount  McKinley  by  Cook  can 
never  be  proved  or  disproved,  unless  perchance 
there  is  a  big  enough  stoneman  on  top  to  withstand 
Alaska  storms ".^^  Careful  investigation  for  over 
a  year  into  this  particular  subject  and  into  the 
methods  used  by  mountain  historians  in  unravel- 
ing tangled  bits  of  mountain  history  shows,  how- 
ever, that  this  statement  is  inaccurate  because  it 
is  too  narrow,  and  that  the  reports  of  eye-wit- 
nesses of  an  ascent  and  also  the  statements  and 
observations  of  later  climbers  may  be  as  strong 
proof  as  a  stoneman.  As  far  as  I  can  see  now, 
the  proofs  about  a  mountain  ascent  fall  into  three 
main  classes:  traces  or  relics  left  on  the  mountain 
by  the  climbers:  statements  by  eye-witnesses  of 
the  ascent:  proofs  furnished  by  the  observations 
and  statements  of  other  climbers. 


'^The   Alpine  Journal,   1899,   Vol.  XIX,  pages  536-543, 
559,  560. 

"  The  North  Pole  and  Bradley  Land,  1913,  pages  30,  31. 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS.  21 

Traces  or  relics  of  an  ascent  consist  of  something 
erected  or  left  on  the  mountain  by  the  climbers. 
Usually  these  traces  take  the  form  of  a  stoneman 
also  called  a  cairn,  or  of  a  bottle  or  empty  tin  con- 
taining the  visiting  cards  of  the  climbers.  But 
all  sorts  of  odds  and  ends  have  been  left  on  moun- 
tain tops,  and  when  anything  of  the  kind  is  found 
on  a  mountain  top,  it  is,  of  course,  absolute  proof 
of  a  previous  ascent. 

A  stoneman  is,  perhaps,  the  most  lasting  visible 
memorial  of  an  ascent.  But  a  stoneman  cannot 
always  be  erected.  A  stoneman  cannot  be  raised 
on  a  snow  peak.  Neither  can  a  stoneman  always  be 
raised  on  a  rock  peak:  not  for  instance  on  a  peak 
where  there  are  nothing  but  big  rocks  near  the 
top,  since  the  fragments  of  rock  a  stoneman  is  built 
of  must  be  manageable  by  one  or  two  men  with- 
out mechanical  appliances. 

How  well  a  stoneman  may  last,  I  have  learned 
from  ocular  proof.  In  1881,  I  spent  a  few  days  at 
the  Hotel  Aak,  Romsdal,  Norway.  Back  of  this 
rises  the  cone-shaped  Romsdalhorn.  It  certainly 
looked  inaccessible  from  its  repellent  smoothness, 
its  sides  rising  up  almost  like  a  gigantic  bottle.  I 
asked  the  natives  about  its  ascent,  and  they  shook 
their  heads  and  said  it  was  impossible.  But,  I 
urged,  someone  has  surely  been  up,  for  there  is  a 
pile  of  stones  on  top  which  must  be  a  stoneman. 
The  answer  was  that  it  was  only  a  little  knob  of 


22  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

rock  on  top  of  the  mountain.  The  same  summer 
Mr.  Carl  Hall,  a  Dane,  after  six  attempts,  did 
climb  the  Romsdalhorn,  and  did  find  on  top  a  cairn 
which,  it  is  now  believed,  was  raised  by  an  enter- 
prising Norwegian  blacksmith  ^^  who  climbed  the 
mountain  approximately  about  the  year  1828. 
Here  is  a  well  authenticated  case  of  a  stoneman 
standing  for  several  decades  against  violent  wind- 
storms and  eventually  proving  that  a  forgotten  or 
disbelieved  ascent  had  genuinely  been  made. 

That,  on  the  contrary,  stonemen  vanish  some- 
times utterly  in  a  few  years  and  therefore  are  not 
certain  proof  of  an  ascent  is  shown  in  the  early 
ascents  of  the  Finsteraarhorn.  The  guides  Jakob 
Leuthold  and  Johann  Wahren,  built  in  1829  on  the 
Finsteraarhorn  a  stoneman  7  feet  high  and  planted 
in  it  a  pole  as  thick  as  a  man's  arm  and  7  feet  long. 
In  1842,  the  guides  Johann  Jaun  and  Heinrich 
Lorentz  also  reached  the  top  and  found  no  traces 
of  any  previous  ascent  except  three  little  iron  rods, 
some  rolled  up  thread  and  a  needle  fast  rusted 
therein.  ^^  Here,  therefore,  is  a  case  where  some 
infinitesimal  trifles,  doubtless  accidentally  dropt  on 
the  ground,  perhaps  in  1812  but  possibly  in  1829, 
outlasted  a  laboriously  erected  and  apparently 
solid  rock  memorial. 

i»  The  Alpine  Journal,  1883,  Vol.  XI,  page  144. 

'"'The  Alpine  Journal,  1913,  Vol.  XXVII,  pages  296,  298. 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS.  23 

It  is  certainly  not  surprising  that  often  stonemen 
and  relics  on  mountain  tops  are  obliterated.  A 
stoneman  on  a  real  top  is  entirely  exposed  to  the 
weather  and  may  gradually  be  blown  away  by 
the  furious  hurricanes  which  sometimes  rage  over 
high  peaks.  Bottles  and  such  objects  may  be 
sheltered  in  some  rock  cracks  but  even  they  may 
disappear.  I  am  certain  that  on  two  rock  peaks, 
the  Nadelhorn,  14,220  feet,  which  had  been  cHmbed 
once,  and  the  Portienhorn,  12,010  feet,  which  I 
think  had  been  climbed  twice,  before  I  ascended 
them,  there  was,  when  I  reached  their  summits,  no 
vestige  of  a  stoneman  nor  any  traces  of  previous 
ascents.  But  in  both  cases  the  tops  were  exposed 
to  any  storm  and  any  relics  left  by  other  climbers 
were  surely  swept  away.  While  the  presence  of 
stonemen  and  relics,  therefore,  may  be  looked  on 
as  positive  evidence  of  an  ascent,  their  absence, 
on  the  contrary,  cannot  be  considered  as  absolute 
negative  evidence.  They  may  have  existed  and 
have  been  destroyed. 

As  good  proof  of  an  ascent  as  there  is,  is  when 
the  climbers  are  actually  seen  on  a  mountain  thru 
a  telescope.  This  happens,  on  many  a  summer 
day,  when  the  ascents  of  Mont  Blanc  are  watched 
thru  the  telescopes  at  Chamonix.  And  most  for- 
tunately this  happened  with  the  first  ascent  of 
Mont  Blanc.  Another  famous  first  ascent  in 
which  the  climbers  were  watched  on  top  was  the 


24  MOUNT  Mckinley 

first  ascent  of  the  Matterhorn,  but  it  is  perhaps 
more  rarely  noticed  that  Croz,  Hudson,  Hadow 
and  Douglas  were  actually  seen  to  fall  from  near 
the  summit  of  the  Matterhorn  to  the  Matter- 
horngletscher  by  a  sharp  eyed  lad  at  Zermatt.^° 

In  regard  to  the  accuracy  of  observers  of  an 
ascent  thru  a  telescope  and  the  value  of  their 
testimony,  however,  the  following  personal  exper- 
ience may  be  of  some  interest.  While  staying  at 
the  Hotel  Couttet  in  Chamonix,  a  number  of  men 
and  women  collected  at  the  telescope  in  the  garden 
one  day  to  watch  a  party  who  were  reported  to  be 
ascending  Mont  Blanc.  After  eight  or  ten  other 
persons  had  had  a  look,  never  moving  the  tele- 
scope and  apparently  with  satisfaction,  my  turn 
came.  I  then  found  that  the  telescope  was  pointed 
at  the  uppermost  crevasses  and  seracs  of  the  Glacier 
des  Bossons  where  no  human  foot  ever  trod.  By 
turning  the  telescope  to  a  point  some  five  thousand 
feet  higher,  near  the  Calotte,  the  climbers  ap- 
peared wending  their  steps  upwards.  But  I  have 
always  wondered  what  those  sharp-eyed  tourists 
who  had  looked  before  me  thought  of  the  resem- 
blance of  crevasses  and  seracs  to  human  beings. 
And  it  seems  to  me,  that  this  experience  shows 
that  the  testimony  of  eye-witnesses  of  an  ascent 
is  not  absolute  proof:  it  must  also  be  taken  into 
account  who  these  witnesses  are. 

^**  Edward  Whymper :  Scrambles  Amongst  the  Alps,  Chap.XXII. 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  25 

The  third  class  of  proofs  in  regard  to  mountain 
ascents  are  those  furnished  by  the  observations 
and  statements  of  other  climbers.  If  an  ascent  is 
disputed  and  there  are  no  relics  of  the  climbers 
found  on  the  mountain  nor  any  eye-witnesses  of 
the  ascent,  the  only  way  left  to  solve  the  problem 
is  to  compare  this  ascent  with  other  ascents.  And 
to  judge  mountain  ascents  by  the  comparative 
method,  requires  more  than  a  mere  cUmber :  it 
requires  a  mountain  historian.  A  man  might  be 
a  capital  chmber  and  an  excellent  mountaineer  and 
yet  know  nothing  of  the  history  of  mountaineer- 
ing. But  to  compare  ascents,  a  man  must  know  a 
great  deal  about  the  history  of  many  peaks:  he 
must  have  a  good  working  knowledge  of  what  has 
been  done  and  what  can  be  done  on  a  mountain 
side:  he  must  know  enough  about  ascents  in 
general  to  be  able  to  draw  comparisons.  And  this 
knowledge  must  be  obtained,  sitting  in  an  easy 
chair,  from  an  extensive  perusal  of  the  printed 
pages  narrating  the  exploits  of  other  climbers. 

But  a  man  might  know  all  about  the  history  of 
mountaineering,  yet  never  have  been  on  a  mountain 
side.  And  he  would  lack  a  certain  knowledge  very 
important  to  a  mountain  critic.  There  are  thou- 
sands of  details,  about  guides,  and  equipment, 
and  rocks,  and  ice,  and  weather,  which  only  first 
hand  experience  can  teach  a  man.  And  so  far,  it 
is  men  who  have  studied  long  and  carefully  the 


26  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

ascents  of  others  and  who  have  had  also  the  train- 
ing of  actual  practice  who  have  been  able  to  turn 
the  Hght  of  comparison  on  to  dark  recesses  in  the 
story  of  the  mountains.  And  when  comparison  is 
applied  from  a  full  knowledge  to  mountaineering, 
it  may  be  depended  on,  as  in  most,  perhaps  all, 
other  subjects,  to  yield  fruitful  results. 

The  comparative  method  of  judging  mountain 
ascents  is  of  special  value  in  examining  into  first 
ascents,  or  into  first  ascents  by  a  new  route.  First 
ascents  and  new  routes  may  be  checked  off  and 
compared  in  two  lines:  first,  with  the  ascents  of 
other  mountains:  second,  with  later  ascents  of  the 
same  mountain.  One  can  compare  the  statements 
of  the  makers  of  a  first  ascent  or  a  new  route  with 
the  accumulated  testimony  of  tens  of  thousands  of 
other  climbers  in  regard  to  the  equipment,  the 
weights  carried,  the  distances  traversed,  the  times 
given,  the  vertical  heights  climbed,  the  steepness 
of  slopes,  the  kind  of  rocks,  the  ice  or  snow  en- 
countered, the  effects  of  rarefied  air,  etc.  What 
has  been  done  and  what  can  be  done  is  perfectly 
well  known.  From  the  statements  of  the  first  party 
who  claims  the  ascent  of  a  mountain,  it  is  well 
within  the  powers  of  a  person  trained  in  mountain 
lore  to  say  whether  the  ascent  was  possible  or  im- 
possible :  he  could  not  say  positively  that  the  ascent 
had  been  made,  but  he  could  say  definitely  whether 
it  might  have  been  made. 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  27 

When,  however,  a  mountain  is  ascended  a  second 
time  by  the  same  route,  the  statements  of  the  first 
party  can  be  verified  or  discredited  almost  to  a 
certainty.    Accounts  of  ascents  never  tally  exactly: 
no  two  sets  of  men  have  quite  the  same  exper- 
iences:  no  two  men  observe  quite  the  same  things 
nor  describe  them  alike:    there  are  always  some 
variations.     But   suppose,   for   instance,   that   the 
first  party  balances  along  an  arete  for  a  thousand 
feet,  then  takes  to  a  couloir  east  of  the  arfete  for 
another  thousand  feet,  then  makes  a  bad  traverse 
for  three  hundred  feet,  and  then  pulls  up  steep 
rocks  for  another  thousand  feet:   if  now  the  second 
party    reports    doing    these    same    things    because 
they  also  found  it  was  the  correct  route,  then  there 
is  definite  proof  of  the  ascent  of  the  first  party. 
That  sort  of  proofs  about  a  steep  mountain  side 
cannot  be  invented  from  below.     You  cannot  tell 
before  hand  that  an  arete  is  negotiable,  that  one 
can  cut  up  a  steep  couloir,  whether  steep  rocks 
can  be  climbed  or  not.     For  years  the  Zermatt 
face  of  the  Matterhorn  and  the  La  Berarde  face 
of  the  Meije  were  left  untouched  by  the  best  guides 
because  they  looked  impossible,  and  yet  they  were 
the  easiest  sides  of  the  two  mountains.     Climbers 
do  not  invent  and  lay  down  ahead  with  certainty 
definite  routes  up  difficult  mountains:   they  try  and 
often  are  defeated.     But  when  a  climber  does  fol- 
low a  route  and  another  party  comes  along  and 


28  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

finds  that  route  a  good  one,  the  first  climber  is 
verified.  The  verification  of  a  first  ascent  by  a 
second  party  implies,  however,  of  course,  that  the 
second  party  really  made  the  ascent.  A  climber 
on  a  first  ascent  cannot  copy  anyone  else,  but  a 
climber  on  a  second  ascent  can  of  course  copy  his 
predecessor's  account.  But  if  the  second  party 
really  made  the  ascent,  and  found  the  great  lines 
of  the  ascent  similar  to  that  of  the  first  party,  the 
first  ascent  is  proved. 

Second  and  later  ascents  of  a  mountain  are,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  a  great  deal  harder  to  prove 
than  first  ascents  or  first  ascents  by  a  new  route. 
A  great  many,  indeed  the  majority  of,  mountain 
ascents  certainly  cannot  be  proved  by  the  com- 
parative method.  This  applies  to  the  ascents  of 
well-known  mountains  by  ordinary  routes.  For 
when  a  mountain  has  been  climbed  even  only 
once,  and  its  ascent  correctly  described  at  least 
once,  it  could  be  climbed  a  second  time  in  imagina- 
tion only  and  a  romantic  description  of  this  imagi- 
nary ascent  indited  which  it  would  be  hard  to  tell 
from  a  genuine  one.  A  man  might  start  up  a  well- 
known  mountain,  having  first  of  all  read  up  care- 
fully about  it,  never  go  to  the  top,  and  on  coming 
down  describe  the  ascent  so  correctly  as  to  ensure 
recognition  of  his  success. 

A  second  or  third  ascent,  however,  is  still,  to 
some  extent,  verifiable  comparatively.    The  second 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'   PROOFS.  29 

or  third  climber  of  a  mountain  is  likely  to  give 
some  details  which,  to  an  expert  mountain  his- 
torian, carry  conviction.  Among  such  proofs,  for 
instance,  may  be  mentioned  photographs.  Photo- 
graphs, however,  cannot  always  be  called  absolute 
proof,  for  they  can  be  manipulated  and  retouched 
to  almost  any  extent.  But  genuine  untouched 
photographs  nevertheless  sometimes  might  afford 
almost  positive  proof  of  a  second  or  third  ascent. 


MOUNT  Mckinley  and  mountain  climbers'  proofs.    31 


II. 

THE  DEADLY  PARALLEL. 
The  North  American  Continent  reaches  its  great- 
est altitude  in  south  central  Alaska  in  the  shape  of 
a  gigantic  mountain.  The  height  of  this  mountain, 
not  positively  determined  as  yet,  is  almost  surely 
between  20,300  feet  and  20,500  feet,  while  the  snow 
line  at  its  base  is  in  the  neighborhood  of  2,000 
feet,  and  therefore,  unless  there  is  some  unknown 
peak  in  Antarctica  rising  to  above  19,000  feet,  the 
great  Alaska  summit  is  vertically  the  tallest  snow 
carrier  in  the  world.  That  there  is  a  native  name 
for  this  mountain  was  probably  unknown  to  the 
first  white  invaders  of  Alaska  who  became  aware 
of  the  existence  of  the  mountain.  The  Russians 
called  it  Bulshaia  Gora,  or  Big  Mountain,  and  an 
American  mining  prospector,  Mr.  W.  A.  Dickey, 
renamed  it  Mount  McKinley.  As  acquaintance 
ripened,  however,  it  was  discovered  that  there  was 
an  appropriate,  descriptive  native  name  for  the 
mountain,  Traleyka,  or  Tennally,  or  Denali,  the 
Great  One.^^  Whether  the  native  name  will  ever 
be  restored  to  it  is  problematical,  but  let  us  hope 
that,  either  as  Traleyka  or  Tennally,  it  may  be  in 
the  fullness  of  time. 

^^  Alfred  H.  Brooks:   The  Mount  McKinley  Region,  Alaska: 
United  States  Geological  Survey,  Paper  70,  Washington,  1911. 


32  MOUNT  McKINLEY 

Mount  McKinley  is  far  away  from  the  haunts  of 
civihzed  man,  and  thus  almost  escaped  notice  until 
within  the  last  two  decades.  During  the  last 
five  years,  however,  it  was  brought  into  sudden 
prominence,  and,  curiously  enough,  not  because  of 
its  own  grandeur,  but  on  account  of  an  entirely 
different  matter,  the  discovery  of  the  North  Pole, 
which,  owing  to  much  foolish  talk,  has  become 
tangled  up  with  the  first  ascent  of  Mount  Mc- 
Kinley. But  unrelated  as  the  first  ascent  of  Mount 
McKinley  is  to  the  discovery  of  the  North  Pole, 
in  itself  it  is  an  interesting  if  subordinate  subject 
in  the  history  of  geographical  discovery,  and  since 
doubts  have  been  cast  upon  it,  it  becomes  a  motive 
for  mountain  historians  and  some  of  them  should 
investigate  it.  And  it  should  appeal  especially  to 
American  geographers  and  mountain  climbers,  be- 
cause Mount  McKinley  is  the  highest  point  of  the 
North  American  Continent,  and  the  truth  must 
be  known  about  its  first  ascent. 

The  history  of  the  Mount  McKinley  region  has 
been  carefully  written  by  Mr.  Alfred  H.  Brooks,^^ 
to  whose  monumental  work  the  reader  can  refer  for 
information  about  explorations  round  Mount  Mc- 
Kinley. Several  unsuccessful  attempts  to  ascend 
the  mountain  have  been  made.    Judge  James  Wick- 

^^2 Alfred  H.  Brooks:  The  Mount  McKinley  Region,  Alaska: 
United  States  Geological  Survey,  Professional  Paper  70, 
Washington,  1911. 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  33 

ersham,  in  1903,  was  the  first  man  who  tried  to 
climb  the  mountain,  and  he  attacked  it  from  the 
northwest  and  reached  an  altitude  of  10,000  feet.^^ 
Two  attempts  were  made  in  1903  by  Dr.  Frederick 
A.  Cook  and  Mr.  Ralph  L.  Shainwald;  the  first 
from  the  southwest,  the  second  from  the  west, 
when  an  altitude  of  11,000  feet  was  reached.^*  In 
1910  Messrs.  Belmore  Browne  and  Herschel  C. 
Parker  worked  up  the  Ruth  Glacier  nearly  to  the 
eastern  base  of  Mount  McKinley.^^  In  1911,  Mr. 
R.  C.  Bates  tried  to  ascend  by  the  northeast  ridge, 
and  ascended  to  11,000  ieet.^ 

Mount  McKinley  rises  into  a  double  summit, 
a  Southern  and  a  Northern  summit,  of  which 
the  Southern  summit  is  the  highest.  Three  par- 
ties claim  to  have  reached  the  top  of  the  South- 
ern peak,  and  one  claims  to  have  ascended  the 
Northern  summit.  The  first  of  these  claimants 
is  Dr.  Frederick  A.  Cook,  who  says  he  ascended 
the  Southern  peak  of  Mount  McKinley  in  1906, 
and  who  published  first  an  article,  ''The  Con- 
quest of  Mount  McKinley,"   in  Harper's  Monthly 

^Alfred  H.  Brooks:  The  Mount  McKinley  Region,  pages 
29,  30. 

24  Frederick  A.  Cook,  M.  D.:  To  the  Top  of  the  Continent, 
48-70. 

2^ Belmore  Browne:  The  Conquest  of  Mount  McKinley, 
pages  74-180. 

2^ Dr.  Frederick  A.  Cook:  My  Attainment  of  the  Pole,  Press 
Edition,  Mitchell  Kennerley,  MCMXIII,  page  534. 


34  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

Magazine,  May,  1907,  pages  821-837,  and  then 
a  book,  partly  an  enlarged  version  of  his  article. 
To  The  Top  of  The  Continent,  1908,  narrating 
his  ascent.  The  second  party,  known  as  the 
Tom  Lloyd  party,  was  composed  of  several  Alaska 
miners,  who  state  they  went  up  the  Southern  and 
Northern  peaks  in  1910,  and  of  whose  exploit  a  long 
stenographed  account  was  published  in  The  New 
York  Times,  5  June,  1910.  The  third  expedition 
was  that  of  Messrs.  Belmore  Browne  and  Herschel 
C.  Parker  in  1912,  who  state  they  almost  reached  the 
top  of  the  Southern  peak,  and  who  published  an  ac- 
count of  their  adventures  in  several  magazine  arti- 
cles and  in  a  book.  The  Conquest  of  Mount  McKinley, 
1913.  The  fourth  claimant  is  the  Reverend  Dr. 
Hudson  Stuck,  Archdeacon  of  the  Yukon,  who  says 
he  reached  the  top  of  the  Southern  peak  in  1913  and 
who  published  an  account  of  his  travels,  "The  As- 
cent of  Denali,"  in  Scribner^s  Magazine,  November, 
1913,  pages  531-552,  and  also  in  a  book,  The  Ascent 
of  Denali,  1914. 

In  examining  into  this  already  somewhat  volumi- 
nous literature  about  Mount  McKinley,  it  will  soon 
become  apparent  that  the  comparative  method 
must  be  resorted  to  in  any  attempt  to  verify  the 
claims  advanced  by  the  various  climbers  of  the 
mountain.  There  are  no  eye-witnesses  from  below 
of  any  of  the  ascents.  Owing  to  the  snowy  condi- 
tions reported  by  the  second,  third  and  fourth  ex- 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  35 

peditions,  the  only  relic  left  by  any  of  the  climbers 
of  the  least  value  as  proof  is  the  pole  erected  by 
Lloyd  on  the  North  Peak.  A  mountain  historian 
in  this  case,  therefore,  must  turn  to  comparison  to 
unravel  the  history  of  the  first  ascent  of  Mount 
McKinley,  and  for  purposes  of  comparison  a  short 
resume  of  each  account,  consisting  mostly  of  quota- 
tions, is  now  published  in  four  parallel  columns. 
The  figures  at  the  left  hand  side  of  the  columns  re- 
fer to  corresponding  statements  or  observations  in 
the  four  narratives,  and  are  used  again  in  the  com- 
parisons of  these  statements  or  observations  in  Chap- 
ter IV. 


36 


MOUNT  Mckinley 


COOK. 

1.  Dr.  Frederick  A.  Cook, 
according  to  his  own  state- 
ments {To  the  Top  of  the  Con- 
tinent, 1908),  in  1906  came 
up  from  Cook  Inlet  and  as- 
cended Mount  McKinley  with 
one  companion,  Edward  Bar- 
rille. 

On  8  September  they 
started  from  a  camp,  at 
an  altitude  of  about  1000 
feet,  on  the  Tokositna  River, 
just  above  its  junction  with 
the  Chulitna  River,  and 
pushed  up  one  of  the  great 
glaciers,  which  Cook  named 
Ruth  Glacier,  flowing  towards 
the  southeast  from  Mount 
McKinley.  In  three  days 
they  traveled  about  thirty- 
five  miles  and  the  third  night 
camped  on  the  glacier  at 
about  8000  feet.  (To  the 
Top,  pages  188-202.) 

From  this  point,  which  must 
be  northeast  of  the  summit  of 
Mount  McKinley,  Cook  and 
Barrille  climbed  up  the  cliffs 
of  the  eastern  side  of  the  north- 
ern ar^te.  This  ascent,  de- 
scribed in  a  chapter  entitled 
"To  the  North  East  Ridge," 
was  dangerous  from  ava- 
lanches. But  "rising  from 
ridge  to  ridge  and  from  cor- 
nice to  cornice"  they  finally 
reached  the  divide  between 
the  Yukon  and  the  Susitna. 
{To  the  Top,  pages  203-207.) 


LLOYD. 

1.  Messrs.  Thomas  Lloyd, 
Billy  Taylor,  Pete  Anderson, 
and  Charles  McGonagell,  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Lloyd's  state- 
ments, ascended  Mount  Mc- 
Kinley in  the  spring  of  the 
year  1910.  Mr.  Lloyd's  story 
was  taken  down  stenograph- 
ically  and  written  by  Mr.  W. 
F.  Thompson,  Editor  Fair- 
banks (Alaska)  News  Miner, 
and  published  under  the  title 
"First  Account  of  Conquer- 
ing Mt.  McKinley"  in  The 
New  York  Times,  Sunday,  5 
June,  1910. 

The  Lloyd  party  started  11 
February,  1910,  from  Fair- 
banks, and  worked  up  to  the 
mountain  from  the  north  and 
northwest.  Between  4  March 
and  14  March,  they  trans- 
ported by  dog  teams  their 
supplies  up  a  glacier  which, 
on  account  of  its  steep  side 
rock  walls,  they  called  Wall 
Street  Glacier.  "The  route 
was  practically  east  and  west 
until  we  turned  close  to  Mc- 
Kinley. The  trail  was  rais- 
ing all  the  time.  Then  the 
trail  turned  to  the  south — to 
the  left  of  the  ridge  that  wc 
climbed  on.  Arrived  at  the 
Pothole  Camp  *  *  *  Had 
no  aneroid  to  determine  ele- 
vation, but  estimate  it  to  be 
about  9,000  or  10,000  feet." 
"We  had  one  magazine  in  the 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS. 


37 


BROWNE. 

1.  Messrs.  Belmore  Browne 
and  Herschel  C.  Parker,  ac- 
cording to  their  own  state- 
ments {The  Conquest  of  Mount 
McKinley,  1913),  in  1912  came 
up  from  Cook  Inlet  and,  after 
crossing  the  Alaska  Range  to 
the  northeast  of  Mount  Mc- 
Kinley, turned  southwest  for 
a  short  distance. 

They  then  ascended,  from 
the  west,  to  the  Lower  North- 
ern McKinley  Glacier,  which 
Browne  calls  the  Muldrow 
Glacier,  thru  a  gap  which  he 
calls  Glacier  Pass.  Appar- 
ently they  discovered  this 
route  for  themselves,  but  it  is 
probably  the  same  as  that  of 
the  Lloyd  party.  {The  Con- 
quest, pages  281-295.) 

They  then  pushed  up  the 
Lower  Northern  McKinley 
Glacier,  relaying  tremendous 
loads  with  their  dogs,  up  to 
about  11,000  feet,  where  they 
formed  a  "Base  Camp,"  from 
which  on  5  June  they  began 
their  final  attack  on  Mount 
McKinley.  {The  Conquest, 
pages  296-322.) 


STUCK. 

1.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Hudson 
Stuck,  Archdeacon  of  the 
Yukon,  according  to  his  own 
statements  {The  Ascent  of 
Denali,  1914),  ascended 
Mount  McKinley  in  1913. 
His  companions  were  Mr. 
Harry  P.  Karstens,  of  Fair- 
banks; Mr.  Robert  G.  Tatum, 
of  Tennessee;  and  a  half-breed 
native  boy,  Walter  Harper. 
The  party  started  about  the 
middle  of  March  from  Fair- 
banks and  traveled  across  the 
Kantishna  country  to  the 
northwestern  slopes  of  Mount 
McKinley.  They  reached  the 
Lower  Northern  McKinley 
Glacier,  which  Stuck  calls  the 
Muldrow  Glacier,  apparently 
by  precisely  the  same  route  as 
the  Lloyd  and  Browne  parties 
{The  Ascent,  pages  17,  18,  23), 
ascending  to  the  glacier  thru 
a  gap  or  breach  in  the  rocky 
ridge  west  of  the  glacier,  which 
gap  Stuck  calls  the  McPhee 
Pass,  a  name  already  used  by 
Lloyd.  A  wild  rabbit,  who 
was  certainly  a  good  climber, 
followed  the  Stuck  party  up 
the  glacier  to  an  elevation  of 
10,000  feet.  {The  Ascent,  page 
50).  Stuck's  party  then  as- 
cended the  Lower  McKinley 
Glacier,  bringing  forward 
enormous  loads  with  the  help 
of  dogs.  {The  Ascent,  pages 
25-34.) 


38 


MOUNT   McKINLEY 


COOK. 


LLOYD. 

party,  all  the  reading  matter 
we  had     *    *     *    [^  ^^(^  pjc. 

tures  in  it  of  Morgan  and  some 
of  them  guys,  but  I  can't  re- 
member the  name." 

On  17  March,  Lloyd  says: 
"We  are  setting  stakes  across 
the  glacier  to  mark  the  trail  to 
the  saddle."  "The  trail  is 
eight  miles  long."  "We 
would  push  on  each  day  as  far 
as  we  could  and  drop  back  at 
night  to  the  Pothole  Camp  un- 
til we  had  finally  established 
our  last  Camp  at  what  we  all 
judged  to  be  the  16,000  foot 
level." 


2.  Cook  and  Barrille  each 
carried  between  40  and  45 
pounds  of  baggage  at  the 
start,  of  which  21  pounds  was 
pemmican  and  biscuit.  (To 
the  Top,  pages  192-195.) 


2.  Lloyd  says:  "We  used 
no  ropes  in  climbing.  We 
took  our  chances  individually, 
traveled  over  the  glaciers  on 
snowshoes  equipped  with 
roughlocks  *  *  *  We  also 
used  ice  creepers  in  climbing, 
and  snowshoes  only  over  the 
lower  glaciers." 


3.  On  the  divide  Cook 
camped  on  a  little  snow  field, 
where  the  snow  was  hard 
enough  to  cut  blocks  with 
which  to  build  a  snow  house, 
at  a  height  of  about  12,000 
feet.  (To  the  Top,  pages  207- 
211.) 


3.  18  March:  "This  morn- 
ing took  the  blue  tent  up  to 
our  last  camp  (at  the  Saddle) 
and  approximate  the  elevation 
at  not  less  than  15,000  feet. 
We  drove  a  tunnel  into  the 
snow  on  the  left  hand  ridge 
to  make  a  place  to  pitch  the 
tent   in.    The   tunnel   seems 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS.  39 

BROWNE.  STUCK. 


2.  Browne's  party  traveled 
"heavy":  "Our  outfit  com- 
plete weighed  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  six  hundred 
pounds."  (The  Conquest,  page 
297.) 


2.  Stuck's  party  was  handi- 
capped thruout  by  their  loads. 
On  the  Upper  McKinley  Gla- 
cier they  moved  from  250  to 
300  pounds  each  time  they 
advanced  camp,  and  all  told 
climbed  at  least  60,000  feet. 
(The  Ascent,  page  83.) 


3.  Before  19  June  they 
reached  the  Northeast  ridge, 
and  camped  on  a  little  col 
which  Browne  calls  Col  Camp, 
at  about  11,800  feet,  whence 
they  started  on  the  ascent  of 
the  Northeast  ridge.  {The 
Conquest,  page  327.) 


3.  Early  in  May  they 
reached  the  base  of  the  North- 
east ridge,  at  an  altitude  of 
about  11,500  feet.  Here  they 
camped  in  a  spot  of  which 
Stuck  says:  "We  established 
ourselves  in  the  cirque  at  the 
head  of  the  Muldrow  Glacier, 
at  an  elevation  of  about  eleven 


40 


MOUNT   McKINLEY 


COOK. 


LLOYD. 

now  to  be  built  of  solid  ice. 
Then  we  dropped  back  to  the 
Pothole  Camp." 

20  March:  "It  cleared  up 
a  little  this  morning.  Took 
five  of  the  dogs  with  a  jag  of 
freight  up  to  a  little  below  the 
15,000  foot  level,  with  coal  oil 
stove  and  a  little  outfit,  pre- 
paratory to  the  final  camp 
moving." 

22  March:  "It  snowed  all 
night,  Charley  and  Pete  and 
myself  started  with  bedding 
and  a  few  things  for  the 
glacier,  or  the  ridge  between 
the  two  mountain  peaks  of 
McKinley,  where  we  had  drove 
the  tunnel  in  the  snow  and 
where  the  blue  tent  is  *  *  * 
Everything  is  comfortable  in 
our  Tunnel  Camp." 


4.  Cook,  between  12,000  feet 
and  14,000  feet,  followed  the 
edge  of  the  Northeast  ar^te. 
"Along  the  east  among  the 
cliffs  that  had  seemed  im- 
possible from  below  there  were 


4.  26  March :  "  We  are  going 
to  make  our  final  effort  to 
ascend  the  summit  within  the 
next  few  days.  We  have  cut 
steps  and  put  stakes  along  up 
to  the  19,000  foot  elevation." 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS. 


41 


BROWNE. 


STUCK. 

thousand  five  hundred  feet." 
{The  Ascent,  page  34.) 

Stuck  says  that  to  the  west 
of  this  cirque  where  they 
camped  is  a  ridge  running  to 
the  North  Peak:  on  the  east 
a  ridge  running  to  the  South 
Peak:  between  these,  about 
4,000  feet  above  the  cirque, 
is  an  upper  glacier  which  dis- 
charges in  a  tremendous  ice 
fall:  the  best  route,  perhaps 
the  only  one,  is  along  the 
ridge  to  the  east  running  to 
the  South  Peak,  which  is  the 
Northeast  ridge  of  Mount 
McKinley.  {The  Ascent,  pages 
38-40.) 

Of  the  name.  Northeast 
Ridge,  Stuck  says:  "This 
ridge,  then  called  by  Parker 
and  Browne  the  Northeast 
Ridge."  {The  Ascent,  page 
40.)  "The  designation  'North- 
east,' which  the  Parker- 
Browne  party  put  upon  the 
ridge  that  affords  passage 
from  the  lower  glacier  to  the 
upper."  {The  Ascent,  page 
183.) 


4.  Browne,  between  11,800 
feet  and  14,400  feet,  followed 
the  Northeast  ar^te.  "The 
ridge  was  so  sharp  that  I  had 
to  chop  off  the  crest  *  *  * 
On  the  left  the  ridge  dropped 


4.  Stuck  adopted  the  North- 
east ridge  because  it  is  the 
best  route.  He  says  that  it 
"was  a  confused,  jagged  mass 
of  rocks  and  ice  *  *  *, 
The    low    col    in   which    the 


42  MOUNT  Mckinley 

COOK.  LLOYD. 

several  promising  lines  of  at- 
tack along  narrow  overhang- 
ing glaciers  and  over  steep 
ice-sheeted  ridges.  Every  pos- 
sible route  however  from  this 
side  was  seen  as  the  eye  fol- 
lowed it  to  the  summit  to  be 
crossed  somewhere  by  ava- 
lanche tracks.  Along  the  west 
there  was  a  similar  danger 
from  the  sweep  of  the  cease- 
less downpouring  rock  and 
snow.  Our  only  chance,  and 
that  seemed  a  hopeless  one, 
was  along  the  cornice  of  the 
north-eastern  ar^te  upon  which 
we  were  camped.     For  some 

distance  there  was  a  smooth 

line  of  crusted  snow  with  a 

sheer  drop  of  about  4000  feet 

to  either  side."  "With  eter- 
nity but  an  easy  step  below 

every  moment  of  this  climb 

we  went  from  hanging  glacier 

to    snow    slopes,    from    blue 

grottoes    to    pink    pinnacles, 

from   security   to   insecurity, 

with  the  thundering  rush  of 

avalanches    on    both    sides." 

"The  safest  place  was  along 

the  snow  ar^te."    {To  the  Top, 

pages  212-216.) 

5.  At  about  14,000  feet, 
"the  slope  upon  which  we 
had  cut  steps  and  seats  in 
the  ice  was  nearly  60°,  but 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS. 


43 


BROWNE. 

away  at  a  dizzy  angle  for 
6,000  feet  *  *  *  on  the 
right  it  fell  away  almost 
straight  for  2,000  feet:  you 
felt  as  if  you  were  flying." 
(The  Conquest,  page  328.) 

Browne  speaks  of  the  knife- 
edged  ridge  up  to  about  14,400 
feet.  "But  the  work  was  so 
difficult  that  after  seven  hours 
of  continuous  work  with  La 
Voy  chopping  half  the  time  we 
rose  only  800 feet"  {The  Con- 
quest, page  330.) 


STUCK. 

Parker-Browne  party  made 
their  camp  no  longer  existed. 
In  its  place  was  a  great  gap 
from  which  the  ridge  rose 
again  by  a  sheer  ice  gable." 
(Scribner's  Magazine,  1913, 
page  538.)  It  took  his  party 
three  weeks  to  hew  a  stair- 
case three  miles  long  in  the 
Northeast  ridge,  and  they 
were  gone  thirty-one  days 
from  the  camp  at  the  head  of 
the  Lower  Northern  McKinley 
Glacier  until  their  return. 
{The  Ascent,  pages  41-43.) 


5.  "Back  from  a  very  hard 
trip.  We  climbed  to  13,200 
feet  through  the  softest  of 
snow   over   as   sensational   a 


5.  Towards  the  top  of  the 
Northeast  ridge.  Stuck  found 
that  tho  less  broken  than  far- 
ther down,  yet  that  it  was  ter- 


44  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

COOK.  LLOYD. 

the  ice  was  secure,  the  snow 
firm  and  the  danger  from  ava- 
lanches small."  Here  Cook 
dug  a  hole  in  the  ice  and  spent 
the  night.  (To  the  Top,  pages 
217-218.) 


6.  On  leaving  the  14,000 
foot  camp  Cook  says:  "As 
we  dragged  ourselves  out  of 
this  icy  ditch  of  terrors  we 
were  able  to  see  that  we  had 
passed  the  barriers  to  the 
ascent.  The  slopes  above 
were  easy,  safe  and  connected, 
but  the  bigness  of  the  moun- 
tain was  more  and  more  ap- 
parent as  we  rose  above  the 
clouds."  {To  the  Top,  page 
218.)  Somewheres  round 
15,000  feet:  " Soon  after  noon, 
we  swung  from  the  ar^te  east- 
erly to  the  glacier."  (To  the 
Top,  page  219.)  Cook  gives 
a  photograph  (To  the  Top, 
page  226),  taken  at  about 
15,400  feet,  of  an  ar^te  com- 
posed of  great  pointed  rock 
slabs. 

7.  Cook  camped  at  about 
16,300  feet  "in a  small amphi- 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS. 


45 


BROWNE. 

ridge  as  I  have  ever  been  on. 
Some  of  the  slopes  that  we 
traversed  were  60°  or  more, 
for  I  measured  one  that  over- 
hung a  2000-foot  drop  off  that 
measured  50°  on  the  clinome- 
ter, and  there  were  many  that 
I  could  not  measure  because 
we  could  not  stay  on  them 
longer  than  was  necessary." 
(The  Conquest,  page  327.) 


STUCK. 


ribly     steep, 
pages  63,  70.) 


(The    Ascent, 


6.  "On  the  following  day 
we  advanced  our  camp  to  the 
shelter  of  the  rocks,  where  I 
made  the  following  entry  in 
my  diary :  '  15,000  foot  Camp.' 
We  have  packed  up  heavy 
loads  from  our  ridge  camp  in 
a  little  more  than  three  hours 
as  the  steps  high  up  were  not 
badly  drifted.  It  was  fright- 
fully hard  work  and  glad  we 
are  to  be  camped  in  the  lee  of 
some  great  granite  slabs 
*  *  *  We  are  on  the  very 
edge  of  the  Big  Basin  that  di- 
vides the  two  summits  of 
Mount  McKinley."  (The 
Conquest,  page  332.) 


6.  At  about  15,000  feet, 
like  the  preceding  climbers. 
Cook,  Lloyd  and  Browne, 
Stuck  got  on  to  the  Upper 
Glacier.  "Long  as  it  was, 
the  slope  was  ended  at  last, 
and  we  came  straight  to  the 
great  upstanding  granite 
slabs  amongst  which  is  the 
natural  camping-place  in  the 
pass  that  gives  access  to  the 
Grand  Basin."  (The  Ascent, 
page  72.) 


7.  Browne     camped     at         7.  Stuck's    party     camped 
about  15,800  feet  and  16,615     at  16,000  feet;   on  3  June  at 


46 


MOUNT   McKINLEY 


COOK. 

theatre  where  the  snow  was 
hard  enough  to  cut  blocks  for 
a  snow  house-."  {To  the  Top, 
page  221.) 


LLOYD. 


8.  Ascending  from  this 
camp,  Cook  says:  "During 
the  frequent  breathing  spells 
we  examined  the  upper  reaches 
of  the  mountain.  We  had 
seen  the  summit  from  various 
sides,  but  we  were  not  pre- 
pared for  the  surprise  of  the 
great  spread  of  surface.  From 
below  the  apex  appears  like  a 
single  peak,  with  gradual 
slopes.  From  the  northern 
foothills  we  had  previously 
discovered  two  distinct  peaks. 
But  now,  from  the  upper 
slopes,  we  saw  that  there  were 
several  miniature  ranges  run- 
ning up  to  two  main  peaks 
about  two  miles  apart.  To 
the  west  a  ridge  with  a  saddle, 
to  the  east  a  similar  ridge, 
with  one  main  peak  to  the 
southeast.  This  peak  was  the 
highest  point,  and  to  it  we 
aimed    to    take    our    weary 


8.  2  April:  "We  left  Tunnel 
Camp  at  daylight  to  make  the 
high  ridge  toward  the  coast 
summit,  along  which  we  in- 
tended to  proceed  to  the  sum- 
mit. (Note.  There  are  two 
summits  to  Mount  McKinley, 
apparently  of  equal  height, 
and  connected  by  a 'saddle.' 
We  climbed  them  both.) 
*  *  *  Pete  and  Char- 
ley had  been  on  the  Sad- 
dle previously,  cutting  steps 
and  staking  the  trail  and 
preparing  the  way,  so  that 
the  flagpole  might  be  dragged 
to  the  summit  and  erected 
there." 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS. 


47 


BROWNE. 

feet  on  the  Upper  McKinley 
Glacier  on  little  snow  fields 
where  the  cold  was  terrible. 
(The  Conquest,  pages  333-337.) 


STUCK. 

about  16,500  feet  (The  As- 
cent, page  86);  on  5  June  at 
about  17,500  feet  (The  Ascent, 
page  88) ;  on  6  June  at  about 
18,000  feet  (The  Ascent,  page 
89);  on  7  June  they  climbed 
to  the  top  and  back  to  last 
camp.  (The  Ascent,  pages  92- 
116.)  All  these  camps  were 
on  the  snowfields  of  the  Up- 
per McKinley  Glacier. 


8.  Browne's  photographs 
(The  Conquest,  page  334)  of 
his  camps  at  15,800  feet  and 
16,615  show  the  great  spread 
of  surface.  Of  the  view  from 
16,615  feet  he  says:  "On  the 
north  the  great  blue  ice  slopes 
led  up  at  an  almost  unclimb- 
able  pitch  between  the  granite 
buttresses  of  the  Northern 
Peak.  On  the  south  frozen 
snow-fields  swept  gently  to 
the  rock-dotted  sky-line  of 
the  Central  North-East  Ridge 
which  led  in  an  easy  grade  to 
the  final  or  southern  summit  of 
the  great  mountain."  (The 
Conquest,  page  336.) 


48 


MOUNT  McKINLEY 


spirits." 
225,  226.) 


COOK. 
{To  the  Top,  pages 


LLOYD. 


9.  Of  the  climb  from  16,300 
feet  to  18,400  feet  Cook  says: 
"Compared  to  our  lower 
climbs  the  slope  here  was 
ridiculously  easy,  but  the 
work  was  hard,  out  of  all  pro- 
portion to  the  seeming  diffi- 
culties." (To  the  Top,  page 
226.) 

Of  the  climb  from  18,400 
feet  to  the  summit  Cook  re- 
cords: "Our  route  was  over 
a  feathery  snow  field  which 
cushioned  the  gap  between 
rows  of  granite  pinnacles." 
(To  the  Top,  page  230.) 


10.  Between  16,300  feet 
and  18,400  feet  Cook  records: 
"After  slowly  making  a 
hundred  steps  we  puffed  like 
race  horses  on  the  home 
stretch,  and  were  forced  to 
stop  and  gasp  for  breath; 
another  hundred  steps  and 
another  gasp  and  so  on  *  *  * 
Our  legs  were  of  wood  and  our 
feet  of  stone."  {To  the  Top, 
page  226.) 

Beyond  18,400  feet  Cook 
says :  "An  advance  of  twenty 
steps  so  fagged  us  that  we 
were  forced  to  lean  over  on 


10.  Lloyd  states:  "The 
altitude  affected  us  all  differ- 
ently. We  all  had  to  breathe 
through  our  opened  mouth. 
You  couldn't  get  enough  air 
through  your  nostrils:  our 
nostrils  would  not  serve  any- 
one of  us  for  wind-getting." 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'    PROOFS. 

BROWNE.  STUCK. 


49 


9.  At  a  little  less  than 
19,000  feet  Browne  says  of 
the  summit:  "It  rose  as  in- 
nocently as  a  tilted  snow- 
covered  tennis-court  and  as 
we  looked  it  over  we  grinned 
with  relief — we  knew  the  peak 
was  ours."  {The  Conquest, 
page  340.) 


10.  Of  the  climbing  be- 
tween 16,615  feet  and  18,500 
feet  Browne  says :  ' '  We  moved 
very  quietly  and  steadily  *  *  * 
At  regular  half-hour  intervals 
La  Voy  and  I  exchanged 
places  *  *  *  Between 
changes  both  Professor  Parker 
and  I  checked  off  our  rise  in 
altitude  and  to  our  surprise 
we  found  that,  although  we 
thought  we  were  making  fairly 
good  time,  we  were  in  reality 
climbing  only  400  feet  an 
hour."  (The  Conquest,  page 
338.) 


9.  Stuck  found  no  moun- 
taineering difficulties  on  the 
Upper  McKinley  Glacier:  it 
was  merely  a  long  snow  grind. 
Stuck  says:  "With  the  ex- 
ception of  this  ridge,  Denali 
is  not  a  mountain  that  pre- 
sents special  mountaineering 
difficulties  of  a  technical  kind. 
Its  difficulties  lie  in  its  re- 
moteness, its  size,  the  great 
distances  of  snow  and  ice  its 
climbing  must  include  the 
passage  of,  the  burdens  that 
must  be  carried  over  those 
distances."  (TAe  Ascend,  page 
79.) 

10.  Near  the  great  granite 
rocks  at  about  15,000  feet 
Stuck  says  that:  "Higher 
than  any  point  in  the  United 
States  *  *  *  it  is  yet  not 
so  high  as  to  induce  the  acute 
breathlessness  from  which  the 
writer  suffered,  later,  upon 
any  exertion."  {The  Ascent, 
page  76.) 

Stuck  became  more  and 
more  affected  by  the  altitudes 
and  at  the  top  "had  almost  to 
be  hauled  up  the  last  few 
feet,  and  fell  unconscious  for 
a  moment  upon  the  floor  of 


60  MOUNT  McKINLEY 

COOK.  LLOYD. 

our  ice  axes  to  puff  and  ease 
the  heart:  another  twenty 
steps  and  another  rest,  and 
so  on  in  a  Hfe-racking  series 
of  final  effort.  (To  the  Top, 
page  230.)  *  *  *  j^  ^^g 
an  awful  task,  however,  to 
pick  ourselves  up  out  of  the 
deep  snow  and  set  the  un- 
willing muscles  to  work  pull- 
ing up  our  legs  of  stone." 
{To  the  Top,  page  23L) 

IL  At  his  18,400  foot  camp. 
Cook  records:  "The  circula- 
tion was  so  depressed  that  it 
was  impossible  to  dispel  the 
sense  of  chilliness.  Increased 
clothing  or  bed-covers  did  not 
seem  to  make  much  difference. 
The  best  thing  to  dispel  the 
shivers  was  hot  tea.  *  *  * 
Though  the  temperature  was 
only  16°  below  zero,  in  its 
effects  it  was  colder  than  60 
below  at  sea  level."  (To  the 
Top,  pages  226,  227.) 


12.  On  leaving  his  camp  at 
18,400  feet,  Cook  says:  "The 
sun  soon  rose  far  above  the 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS. 


51 


BROWNE.  STUCK, 

Of  the  climb  beyond  18,400  the  little  snow  basin  that  oc- 

feet  Browne  records:   "As  we  cupies  the  top  of  the  moun- 

advanced    up    the    ridge    we  tain."    {The  Ascent,  page  99.) 
noticed  a  shortness  of  breath." 
{The  Conquest,  page  340.) 


11.  Browne's  party  suffered 
severely  from  the  cold. 
They  slept  in  a  tent,  and  not 
in  a  snowhouse,  and  therefore 
probably  felt  the  cold  more 
severely.  Browne  says:  "The 
cold  too  was  intense.  The 
leaves  of  my  diary  were  so 
cold  that  I  could  not  write 
without  gloves.  *  *  *  The 
temperature  inside  of  our  tent 
at  7.30  p.  m.  on  the  26th  of 
June  was  5°  below  zero,  and 
three  hours  later  it  was  19° 
below  zero  *  *  *  \  Q^n 
say  in  all  honesty  that  /  did 
not  have  a  single  night's  nor- 
mal sleep  above  15,000  feet  on 
account  of  the  cold."  {The 
Conquest,  pages  334,  335.) 


11.  Of  the  cold  Stuck  re- 
cords: "Cold  it  was,  at  times 
even  in  the  sunshine,  with  a 
'nipping  and  an  eager  air,'  but 
when  the  wind  ceased  it  would 
grow  intensely  hot.  *  *  * 
At  night  it  was  always  cold, 
10°  below  zero  being  the  high- 
est minimum  during  our  stay 
in  the  Grand  Basin,  and  21° 
below  zero  the  lowest.  But 
we  always  slept  warm."  {The 
Ascent,  pages  81,  82.) 


62 


MOUNT  Mckinley 


COOK. 

green  lowland  beyond  Mount 
Hayes  and  moved  toward  the 
ice-blink  caused  by  the  ex- 
tensive glacial  sheets  north  of 
the  St.  Elias  group."  {To 
the  Top,  page  229.) 


LLOYD. 


13.  "Just  below  the  sum- 
mit we  dropped  over  an  icy 
shelf  on  the  verge  of  collapse. 
After  a  few  moments  we  gath- 
ered breath  and  courage  and 
then  for  the  last  stage  the  life 
line  tightened  with  a  nervous 
pull.  We  edged  up  a  steep 
snowy  ridge  and  over  the 
heaven-scraped  granite  to 
the  top.  AT  LAST!  The 
soul-stirring  task  was  crowned 
with  victory:  the  top  of  the 
continent  was  under  our  feet." 
(Jo  the  Top,  page  23  L) 


13.  2  April:  "From  that 
summit  it  looked  as  though 
the  northern  summit  was 
equally  as  high  as  it  *  *  * 
It  took  us  (to  reach  the  south 
summit)  from  daylight  until 
about  3  p.  m.,  and  we  covered 
six  or  seven  miles  to  make  that 
distance  of  a  thousand  feet 
up." 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS. 
BROWNE.  STUCK. 


53 


13.  From  their  16,615  feet 
camp,  Messrs.  Browne  and 
Parker  made  two  attempts  to 
reach  the  summit  of  Mount 
McKinley.  The  dates  were 
probably  29  June  and  1 
July,  1912,  but  Mr.  Browne's 
book  is  not  very  definite. 
(The  Conquest,  pages  337-350.) 

Nevertheless  they  did  not 
reach  the  actual  summit.  On 
both  their  attempts,  at  a  little 
beyond  19,000  feet,  they  were 
struck  by  blizzards,  and  were 
defeated  by  these  and  not  by 
the  difficulties  of  the  moun- 
tain. They  were  very  close 
indeed  to  the  actual  top  and 
"La  Voy  said  we  had  done 
enough  in  getting  on  top  of 
the  mountain,  and  that  we 
had  climbed  the  peak  because 
it  was  only  a  walk  of  a  few 
minutes  from  our  last  steps  to 
the  final  dome.  This  was 
true,  but  unfortunately  there 
is  a  technicality  in  mountain- 
eering that  draws  a  distinction 
between  a  mountain  top  and 
the  top  of  a  mountain — we  had 


13.  The  top  of  Mount  Mc- 
Kinley, Stuck  describes  as 
follows:  "This,  then,  is  the 
actual  summit,  a  little  crater- 
like  snow  basin,  sixty  or 
sixty-five  feet  long  and  twenty 
to  twenty-five  feet  ^de,  with 
a  haycock  of  snow  at  either 
end — the  south  one  a  little 
higher  than  the  north.  On 
the  southwest  this  little  basin 
is  much  corniced,  and  the 
whole  thing  looked  as  though 
every  severe  storm  might 
somewhat  change  its  shape." 
(The  Ascent,  page  99.) 


54 


MOUNT  McKINLEY 


COOK. 


LLOYD. 


14.  Cook's  photograph  of 
the  summit  of  Mount  Mc- 
Kinley  shows  plenty  of  bare 
rock. 


14.  2  April:  "When  I 
reached  the  coast  summit  I 
couldn't  find  any  rocks  or  any 
formation  in  which  the  flag- 
pole could  be  placed  per- 
manently." 

Lloyd  also  says:  "If  Dr. 
Cook  had  made  the  summit  of 
Mount  McKinley  as  he  says 
he  did  he  could  not  have  es- 
caped seeing  samples  of  the 
rock  on  that  summit  and  near 
it.  Had  he  seen  that  rock  he 
would  have  mentioned  the 
fact,  for  it  is  rock  that  would 
command  the  attention  of  any 
mountaineer,  especially  when 
encountered  in  such  a  spot.  I 
have  sent  samples  of  the  rock 
to  Smithsonian  Institution  for 
classification." 


15.  "A  record  of  our  con- 
quest was,  with  a  small  flag, 
pressed  into  a  metallic  tube 
and  left  in  a  protected  nook 
a  short  distance  below  the 
summit."  {To  the  Top,  page 
233.) 


15.  3  April:  "This  morn- 
ing before  daylight  we  climbed 
to  the  saddle  between  Mc- 
Kinley's  two  peaks,  dragging 
the  flagpole  with  us.  *  *  * 
Once  there  we  proceeded  to 
cross  the  Glacier  between  the 
two  summits,  to  the  North 
summit,  where  the  rocks  were 
*  *  *  Pete  Anderson  kept 
the  time,  as  my  watch  had 


AND  MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS. 


55 


BROWNE. 

not  stood  on  the  top — that  was 
the  only  difference."  {The 
Conquest,  page  346.) 


STUCK. 


14.  Stuck  also  says  of  the 
top:  "There  is  no  rock  of 
any  kind  on  the  South  (the 
higher)  Peak  above  nineteen 
thousand  feet.  The  last  one 
thousand  five  hundred  feet 
of  the  mountain  is  all  perma- 
nent snow  and  ice."  {The 
Ascent,  page  165). 


15.  Browne  records  that 
somewheres  round  19,000  feet 
"In  a  crevice  on  the  highest 
rock  of  the  main  ridge  we  left 
our  minimum  thermometer; 
it,  a  few  cans  of  frozen  pem- 
mican,  and  our  faithful  old 
shovel,  are  the  only  traces  of 
our  struggle  on  the  "Big 
Mountain."  (The  Conquest, 
pages  349,  350.) 


15.  Stuck  tells  of  sighting 
the  flagstaff  set  up  by  the 
Lloyd  party,  in  the  following 
words:  "All  at  once  Walter 
cried  out  *I  see  the  flagstaff!' 
eagerly  pointing  to  the  rocky 
peak  nearest  to  the  summit, 
for  the  summit  itself  is  cov- 
ered with  snow.  Karstens, 
looking  where  he  pointed,  saw 
it  also,  and,  whipping  out  the 


56 


MOUNT  Mckinley 


COOK. 


LLOYD. 

gone  on  the  bum  *  *  * 
When  we  reached  the  northern 
summit  we  found  plenty  of 
rocks  there,  and  we  erected  a 
monument  that  will  endure 
as  long  as  the  top  of  the 
mountain  does  *  *  *  into 
it  we  stuck  that  flagpole  *  * 
The  flag  was  raised  at  3.25 
p.  m.  April  3,  1910     *     *     *" 


16.  Of  the  view  at  the  top 
Cook  says:  "As  the  eye  ran 
down  we  saw  the  upper  clouds 
drawn  out  in  long  strings,  and 
still  further  down  the  big 
cumulus  forms,  and  through 
the  gap  far  below,  seemingly 
in  the  interior  of  the  earth, 
bits  of  rugged  landscape.  *  *  * 
Various  trains  of  morning 
clouds  screened  the  lowlands 


16.  "When  we  were  on  the 
summits  of  Mount  McKinley, 
on  both  days,  it  was  bright 
and  clear  at  the  top,  but  fogs 
and  clouds  obscured  the  view 
below  us  and  we  took  no  pho- 
tographs of  the  surrounding 
country  from  the  summits." 


AND    MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  57 

BROWNE.  STUCK. 

field  glasses,  one  by  one  we  all 
looked  and  all  saw  it  distinctly, 
standing  out  against  the  sky. 
Through  the  glasses  it  rose 
sturdy  and  strong,  one  side 
covered  with  crusted  snow; 
and  we  were  greatly  rejoiced 
that  we  could  carry  down 
confirmation  of  the  matter." 
(Scrihner's  Magazine,  1913, 
page  546.) 

In  descending  from  the 
summit,  Stuck  made  a  detour 
to  seek  Parker's  thermometer, 
but  did  not  find  it.  (The  As- 
cent, page  106.)  Stuck  him- 
self left  some  of  his  surplus 
baggage  at  his  18,000  foot 
camp  on  the  Upper  McKinley 
Glacier  {The  Ascent,  page 
117);  and  also  cached  a  ther- 
mometer and  a  tin  can  near 
some  rocks  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  15,000  feet.  (The 
Ascent,  page  119.) 

16.  Referring  to  Mount 
Foraker,  Stuck  says:  "We 
were  all  agreed  that  no  one 
who  had  ever  stood  on  the  top 
of  Denali  in  clear  weather 
could  fail  to  mention  the 
sudden  splendid  sight  of  this 
great  mountain."  (The  As- 
cent, pages  165,  166.) 


58  MOUNT  Mckinley 

COOK.  LLOYD. 

and  entwined  the  lesser 
peaks.  We  could  see  narrow 
silvery  bands  marking  the 
course  of  the  Yukon  and  the 
Tanana,  while  to  the  south, 
looking  over  nearby  clouds,  we 
had  an  unobstructed  view." 
(To  the  Top,  page  232.) 

17.  Of  the  sky  on  the  16th 
of  September,  when  victory 
crowned  Cook's  efforts.  Cook 
records  observations  suffici- 
ently impressive  to  have 
caused  him  to  entitle  Chapter 
XIV:  "To  The  Top— The 
World  in  White  and  the 
Heavens  in  Black."  At 
18,400  feet  he  says:  "As  the 
darkness  merged  into  twilight 
the  sky  brightened,  but  as  the 
sun  rose  the  sky  darkened  and 
the  cold  increased."  {To  the 
Top,  page  229.)  At  the  top. 
Cook  says:  "It  was  ten  o'clock 
in  the  morning,  the  sky  was  as 
black  as  that  of  midnight. 
At  our  feet  the  snow  glit- 
tered with  a  ghastly  light." 
(To  the  Top,  page  232.)  And 
further:  "Most  impressive 
was  the  curious  low  dark  sky, 
the  dazzHng  brightness  of  the 
frosted  granite  blocks,  the 
neutral  gray-blue  of  space,  the 
frosty  dark  blue  of  the  shad- 
ows."   (To    the    Top,    page 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  59 

BROWNE.  STUCK. 


17.  At  the  top  Stuck  re- 
cords: "Above  us  the  sky 
took  a  blue  so  deep  that  none 
of  us  had  ever  gazed  upon  a 
midday  sky  like  it  before.  It 
was  a  deep,  rich,  lustrous, 
transparent  blue,  as  dark  as 
a  Prussian  blue,  but  intensely 
blue;  a  hue  so  strange,  so  in- 
creasingly impressive,  that  to 
one  at  least  it  'seemed  like 
special  news  of  God,'  as  a  new 
poet  sings.  We  first  noticed 
the  darkening  tint  of  the  sky 
in  the  Grand  Basin,  and  it 
deepened  as  we  rose.  Tyn- 
dall  observed  and  discussed 
this  phenomenon  in  the  Alps, 
but  it  seems  scarcely  to  have 
been  mentioned  since."  {The 
Ascent,  pages  103,  104.) 


60 


MOUNT   McKINLEY 


COOK. 

233.)  Cook's  photograph  of 
the  top  also  shows  the  remark- 
ably dark  sky,  almost  as  dark 
as  the  rocks. 


LLOYD. 


18.  Of  the  return  journey, 
Cook  says:  "The  descent  was 
less  difficult,  but  it  took  us 
four  days  to  tumble  down  to 
our  base  camp."  {To  the 
Top,  page  233.) 


18.  Lloyd  says  of  the  de- 
scent: "Counting  that  we 
left  the  summit  in  the  after- 
noon of  the  3rd,  stopping  at 
the  Tunnel  Camp  that  night 
and  starting  on  the  morning 
of  the  4th  down  the  trail, 
reaching  Willow  Camp  that 
night,  you  will  see  that,  in 
less  than  a  day  and  a  half  we 
covered  the  distance  going 
down  which  it  had  taken  us 
over  a  month  to  cover  going 
up.  We  traveled  light  com- 
ing down,  having  no  grub  and 
not  much  of  a  camp  outfit, 
and  we  made  good  time  over 
our  blazed  and  secured  trail." 
"In  coming  down  the  glacier 
on  the  return  and  final  de- 
scent, Bill  Taylor's  foot 
slipped.  He  shot  down  the 
glacier  with  the  speed  of  an 
express  train  *  *  *  If  his 
hook  had  failed  to  catch,  there 
would  not  have  been  a  grease 
spot  left  of  him  when  he 
reached  the  end  of  the  preci- 
pice." 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS. 


61 


BROWNE. 


STUCK. 


18.  Browne's  party  took 
several  days  to  descend  Mount 
McKinley,  but,  as  in  their 
ascent,  they  appear  to  have 
been  hampered  by  heavy  loads. 
Owing  to  the  time  elapsed 
since  their  ascent  also,  many 
new  crevasses  had  opened  in 
the  ice.  {The  Conquest^  pages 
350-353.) 


18.  Stuck  descended  Mount 
McKinley  in  two  long  days. 
This  was  partly  due  to  the 
great  care  necessary  on  the 
shattered  Northeast  ridge. 
{The  Ascent,  pages  117-128.) 


19.  Browne  reports  feeling         19.  The  ice  on  the  North- 
three  distinct  earthquakes  in     east  ridge  was  found  different 


62  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

COOK.  LLOYD. 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS. 


63 


BROWNE. 

the  neighborhood  of  Mount 
McKinley.  The  last  one  oc- 
curred just  after  his  party 
had  descended  from  Mount 
McKinley  and  consisted  in  a 
series  of  most  terrific  shocks 
continuing  for  about  thirty- 
six  hours,  in  which  the  earth 
heaved  and  rolled,  boulders 
turned  over  and  moved  about, 
the  earth  and  mountains  were 
seamed  and  scarred.  Mounts 
Brooks  and  McKinley  aval- 
anched  in  overpowering  grand- 
eur, the  streams  ran  chocolate- 
colored  from  the  earthslides 
that  had  dammed  them,  whilst 
the  shocks  were  preceded  by 
a  deep  detonation  resembling 
the  noise  made  by  exploding 
steam  and  always  coming 
from  the  same  place — Mount 
McKinley.  Earthquakes  are 
evidently  one  of  the  attrac- 
tions of  the  neighborhood. 
How  far  the  effects  of  this 
earthquake  extended  is,  of 
course,  impossible  to  say,  but 
evidently  it  shook  and  af- 
fected the  whole  of  Mount 
McKinley  and  to  some  extent 
changed  its  configuration. 
{The  Conquest,  pages  188,  302, 
303,  356-359.) 


STUCK. 

by  Stuck  from  preceding 
climbers.  The  ice  seems  to 
have  been  all  smashed  by  the 
earthquake  most  of  the  way 
up.  {The  Ascent,  pages  40- 
42,  53-63.) 


MOUNT  Mckinley  and  mountain  climbers'  proofs.     65 

III. 

MOUNT  DENIAL. 

The  ascent  of  Mount  McKinley  by  Dr.  Cook 
was  accepted  unquestioningly  by  mountaineers  and 
mountain  clubs  thruout  the  world  for  almost  exactly 
three  years  after  he  had  made  it  and  then  sud- 
denly it  was  denied  by  certain  persons  who  wished 
to  prove  that  Dr.  Cook  had  not  discovered  the 
North  Pole.  One  of  their  arguments  was  that 
Cook's  ascent  of  Mount  McKinley  was  a  romance 
and  therefore  that  Cook's  discoveries  of  Bradley 
Land,  of  Cook  Land  Ice,  and  of  an  endless  field  of 
purple  snows  at  the  North  Pole  must  be  imagina- 
tive dreams.  Their  logic  about  geographic  evi- 
dence is  exactly  the  same  as  the  medieval  logic 
about  evidence  which  Dr.  John  William  Draper, 
in  one  of  his  books,  sums  up  as  follows:  ''Of  this 
presumptuous  system,  the  strangest  part  was  its 
logic,  the  nature  of  its  proofs.  It  relied  upon 
miracle-evidence.  A  fact  was  supposed  to  be 
demonstrated  by  an  astounding  illustration  of 
something  else!  An  Arabian  writer,  referring  to 
this  says:  'If  a  conjurer  should  say  to  me — Three 
are  more  than  ten,  and  in  proof  of  it  I  will  change 
this  stick  into  a  serpent — I  might  be  surprised 
at  his  legerdemain,  but  I  certainly  should  not 
admit  his  assertion.'    Yet,  for  more  than  a  thousand 


66      .  MOUNT  McKINLEY 

years,  such  was  the  accepted  logic,  and  all  over 
Europe  propositions  equally  absurd  were  accepted 
on  equally  ridiculous  proof."  Foolish  as  this  is,  it 
is  no  more  foolish  than  the  queer  notion  many 
people  still  seem  to  have  that  the  ascent  of  Mount 
McKinley  is  the  vital  point  in  regard  to  the  dis- 
covery of  the  North  Pole.  It  should  cause  no  sur- 
prise, therefore,  if,  some  bright  morning,  some 
medieval  survivor  should  announce,  for  instance, 
that  the  ascent  of  Mount  McKinley  proved  that 
General  Grant  did  not  take  Richmond.  But  it  is 
entirely  due  to  the  desire  to  invalidate  the  dis- 
covery of  the  North  Pole  by  Cook,  that  the  first 
ascent  of  Mount  McKinley  has  been  subjected  to 
attacks  of  a  virulence  unparalleled  in  the  history 
of  mountaineering. 

In  pretending  to  deny  Cook's  discovery  of  the 
North  Pole  by  denying  his  ascent  of  Mount  Mc- 
Kinley, two  sets  of  persons  were  called  on  as  wit- 
nesses. The  first  set  includes  certain  inhabitants 
of  Alaska  who  did  not  share  in  Cook's  ascent,  but 
who  spread  the  characteristic  denial  by  dwellers 
round  a  peak  of  its  non-ascent:  and  these,  there- 
fore, are  ignorant  witnesses.  The  second  set  are 
the  followers  of  Cook  up  Mount  McKinley,  and 
undoubtedly  whatever  their  motive,  the  taking 
away  of  the  credit  from  Cook  would  give  them- 
selves more  credit:  and  these  therefore  are  inter- 
ested witnesses.    But  in  the  case  of  the  later  climbers 


AND    MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  67 

of  Mount  McKinley,  their  denials  do  not  apply  to 
Cook  only,  but  to  all  their  predecessors.  Lloyd 
denies  Cook.  Browne  denies  Cook  and  Lloyd. 
Stuck  denies  Cook  and  Lloyd,  and  while  not 
denying  Browne,  repeats  over  and  over  again  that 
Browne  did  not  reach  the  top.  There  is  a  perfect 
epidemic  of  denials.  So  much  so  that  it  would  be 
accurate  to  nickname  the  peak  Mount  Denial, 
instead  of  the  name  urged  by  Archdeacon  Stuck, 
Mount  Denali.  And  I  should  personally  oppose 
calling  the  peak  Denali,  because  it  is  the  anagram 
of  Denial. 

This  desecration  of  the  greatest  peak  in  North 
America  by  the  denials  of  the  tiny  bipeds  who 
crawled  to  its  top  is  unfortunate  and  much  to  be 
regretted.  When  one  thinks  of  its  forms,  its  rocks, 
its  tremendous  precipices,  its  unequaled  ice  fall,  its 
thunderous  avalanches,  its  giddy  aretes:  and  of  its 
colors,  dazzling  whites,  rich  browns,  dark  purples, 
vivid  emeralds: — apparently  it  should  arouse  in  the 
breasts  of  even  those  who  did  not  first  ascend  it, 
emotions  deep  and  elevating.  But  not  much:  it 
is  turned  into  a  cockpit  into  which  to  hurl  denials. 

Certainly  this  is  strange,  for  there  is  nothing  in 
the  world  more  glorious  than  a  snow-clad  peak. 
Not  only  in  their  sculptural  quality  of  form,  but 
in  their  pictorial  impressions  great  mountains  are 
unsurpassable  in  their  weird  beauty.  Few  persons 
realize  the  vivid  tints  which  follow  each  other  from 


68  MOUNT  Mckinley 


27 


daylight  to  dark.  Listen  to  Edward  Whjrmper 
anticipating  Cook's  ''endless  fields  of  purple  snows" 
in  the  following  description:  ''I  set  it  [the  tent] 
up,  and  turned  again  to  the  view;  the  sun  was 
setting,  and  its  rosy  rays  blending  with  the  snowy 
blue  had  thrown  a  pale  pure  violet  far  as  the  eye 
could  see;  the  valleys  were  drowned  in  a  purple 
gloom,  and  the  summits  shone  with  unnatural 
brightness."  But  the  Alps  are  not  content  with 
everyday  color  effects.  On  a  fine  morning,  while 
ascending  the  Gross  Glockner  in  Tyrol,  Mr.  E. 
Thurstan  Holland  records :^^  "I  had  been  looking 
at  this  magnificent  effect  of  the  sunrise,  when, 
happening  to  turn,  I  was  surprised  to  see  that  our 
shadows  upon  the  white  snow  at  out  feet  were  of 
a  pale,  though  decided,  green  colour.  Wishing  to 
make  certain  of  the  fact,  I  asked  one  of  my  friends 
to  look  at  the  shadows  and  tell  me  what  colour  they 
were;  and  he  immediately  answered  that  they 
were  green.  This  colour  they  retained  for  about  ten 
minutes,  until  the  sun  had  shown  himself  above  the 
eastern  range  of  mountains."  It  is  certainly  lucky 
that  no  one  observed  green  snow  on  Mount  McKin- 
ley:  for  if  anyone  had,  he  would  have  been  buried 
under  the  biggest  recorded  avalanche  of  denials. 

Cook's    ascent    of    Mount    McKinley    was    un- 
assailed  for  three  years,  during  which  his  narrative 

''''The  Alpine  Journal,  1865,  Vol.  II,  page  8. 
^^The  Alpine  Journal,  1863,  Vol.  I,  page  95. 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  69 

was  judged  on  its  own  merits.  And  what  these 
are  and  how  they  appeared  at  the  time  to  an  un- 
biased mountaineer  may  be  gathered  from  the 
following  review  by  an  anonymous  writer  of  To 
the  Top  of  the  Continent,  which  appeared  in  The 
Alpine  Journal,^^  then  edited  by  the  veteran  climber 
and  mountain  historian,  Mr.  George  Yeld.  It 
gives  such  an  excellent,  condensed  resume  by  an 
expert  mountaineer  of  the  narrative  as  to  be  worth 
quoting  from  at  length: 

"This  is  a  highly  coloured  narrative  of  travel  in 
a  country  where  perils  by  water  are  as  frequent 
and  perhaps  even  more  serious  than  perils  by  land. 
It  is  obviously  written  to  suit  the  taste  of  an 
American  public.  The  author  alleges  that  his  sub- 
ject strains  the  'English  Dictionary.'  He  has 
accordingly  done  his  best  to  enlarge  that  volume. 
His  style  is  exuberant,  and  words  are  put  to  what 
may  seem,  to  European  ears,  strange  uses.  For 
instance,  a  niche  cut  out  of  a  snow  slope  for  a 
night  shelter  becomes  a  'sidehill  ditch,'  the  Alpine 
rope  is  a  'lifeline,'  an  avalanche  a  'reducing  train.' 
Even  'foot  hills'  are  'sky-piercing,'  and  loftier 
summits  are  alternately  'heaven  scraped'  and  'sky- 
scraping,'  phrases  which  unluckily  have  anything 
but  sublime  associations!  To  readers  accustomed 
to  an  Alpine  literature,  written  with  more  method 

2^908,  Vol.  XXIV,  pages  364-366. 


70  MOUNT  McKINLEY 

and  self  restraint,  the  details  here  given  of  the  great 
feat  which  was  the  author's  chief  aim,  the  first 
ascent  of  Mount  McKinley  (20,390  ft.)  the  highest 
mountain  in  North  America,  are  somewhat  difficult 
to  follow.  Moreover,  the  difficulty  is  greatly  in- 
creased by  the  absence  of  any  map  of  the  district 
beyond  a  'miner's  map,'  on  the  small  scale  of  20 
miles  to  the  inch." 

''The  following  appear  to  be  the  main  facts  re- 
corded by  Dr.  Cook  as  to  an  expedition  remark- 
able in  itself,  and  rendered  still  more  remarkable 
by  the  late  period  of  the  year  at  which  it  was  ac- 
complished. The  climbing  party  was  composed 
of  Dr.  Cook  and  one  companion,  Mr.  Bareille. 
They  had  no  porters,  but  each  carried  a  burden  of 
over  40  lbs.,  comprising  a  silk  tent,  coats  capable 
of  being  converted  into  sleeping-bags,  provisions, 
cooking  utensils,  and  certain  instruments.  They 
were  absent  from  their  base  camp  (1,000  ft.)  12 
days.  In  the  first  three  of  the  eight  given  to  the 
ascent  they  marched  35  miles  up  a  glacier;  the 
remaining  five  were  occupied  in  the  actual  climb, 
which  began  at  about  8,000  ft.  They  slept  two 
nights  at  12,000  ft.  and  16,300  ft.  respectively  in 
domed  huts  formed  of  snow-blocks  (we  are  not 
told  how  the  blocks  were  cut).  The  intervening 
night  was  spent  in  a  hole  cut  on  an  ice-slope  at  an 
angle  of  'nearly  60°,'  and  another  night  at  18,400 
ft.   in   a   silk   tent   (temperature   16°   below   zero). 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  71 

The  chief  difficulties  of  the  cHmb  were  encountered 
in  the  middle  portion  (12,000  to  16,000  ft.),  after 
the  northern  ridge  of  the  mountain  had  been  gained. 
Here  ridges,  cornices,  seracs,  and  ice-slopes  were 
piled  up  in  a  bewildering  confusion  that  has  com- 
municated itself  to  the  narrative.  The  final  4,000 
ft.  took  two  days  to  surmount,  the  rarity  of  the  air 
proving  the  chief  impediment.  The  temperature 
on  the  top  at  10  A,  M.  was  the  same  as  during  the 
previous  night  in  the  tent.  To  bring  the  detailed 
narrative  and  figures  into  correspondence,  the  date 
of  the  final  ascent  should  be  'September  15,'  not 
16,  and  on  page  224  we  should  read  seventh  for 
'sixth'  day." 

As  will  readily  be  noticed,  the  review  is  not 
quite  friendly  to  Dr.  Cook  nor  to  Americans  in 
regard  to  the  American  use  of  the  English  language. 
But  in  regard  to  the  mountaineering  involved,  the 
reviewer  accepts  every  point  unquestioningly.  The 
reviewer  sees  perfectly  that  Cook  and  Barrille  might 
have  marched  35  miles  up  a  glacier  in  three  days; 
and  that  in  five  days  more  they  might  have 
ascended  from  8,000  feet  to  20,300  feet,  as  this 
would  be  at  the  rate  of  only  about  2,500  feet  a  day. 
The  reviewer  therefore  implies,  that  there  is  nothing 
so  very  extraordinary  in  the  ascent,  nothing  to 
raise  the  shghtest  doubt  among  the  body  of  men 
who  are  best  acquainted  with  the  history  of  moun- 
taineering and  best  acquainted  with  every  detail 


72  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

of  practical  mountaineering.  The  review,  in  other 
words,  based  on  a  thoro  knowledge  of  practical  and 
historical  mountaineering,  at  a  time  when  Dr. 
Cook  had  not  been  attacked  for  having  discovered 
the  North  Pole,  was  entirely  favorable  to  him  and 
accepted  without  qualification  all  his  statements 
about  his  manifestly  possible  ascent  of  Mount 
McKinley. 

The  denials  by  inhabitants  of  Alaska  who  did 
not  climb  Mount  McKinley  are  not  worth  noticing, 
considering  that  these  men  know  nothing  of  the 
matter. 

The  denial  which  Mr.  Edward  Barrille,  Dr.  Cook^s 
companion,  is  reported  to  have  made  in  an  affi- 
davit, but  not  until  after  Cook's  return  from  the 
North  Pole,^''  needs  brief  mention.  It  is  signifi- 
cant, however,  that  Barrille  seems  to  have  been 
silent  until  the  North  Pole  controversy  was  in  full 
blast.  Before  that,  Barrille  does  not  seem  to  have 
published  any  writing  denying  the  ascent,  and  his 
silence  for  three  years  would  seem  to  have  given 
consent  rather  than  contradiction  to  Cook's  claim. 
Barrille's  denial,  therefore,  if  he  did  deny,  lacks 
the  value  that  might  have  attached  to  it  if  it  had 
been  promptly  made. 

The  published  assertions,  statements  and  denials 
of  the  men  who  claim  that  they  also  have  ascended 

^"Dr.  Frederick  A.  Cook:  My  Attainment  of  the  Pole,  1911, 
pages  13,  14,  522-524. 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'   PROOFS.  73 

Mount  McKinley  are  the  only  ones  which  require 
a  searching  investigation,  because  these  men  have 
first  hand  knowledge  of  the  mountain  and  because 
they  are  personally  interested  in  the  matter.  And, 
in  the  order  of  time,  Lloyd  takes  precedence. 

Mr.  Lloyd  denies  Dr.  Cook's  ascent.  ^^  He 
attacks  Cook  for  not  mentioning  certain  rocks 
near  the  summit,  ^^  and  thus  unwittingly  presents 
distinct  proof  in  favor  of  Cook  by  showing  that 
there  is  rock  near  the  summit. 

Barring  this,  Lloyd's  denial  of  Cook  is  summed 
up  in  the  following  two  paragraphs: 

''Furthermore,  he  absolutely  could  not  pass  over 
the  glaciers  that  it  is  necessary  to  pass  over  to  get 
up  Mount  McKinley — could  not  get  over  them  at 
the  time  of  the  year  he  claims  to  have  gone  over 
them.  There  are  glaciers  there  that  he  would  have 
had  to  pass  over  to  make  the  ascent,  and  at  that 
time  of  the  year  neither  he  nor  any  other  man 
could  pass  over  them,  not  at  any  time  of  the  year 
can  any  man  pass  over  them  without  using  snow- 
shoes — and  Dr.  Cook  mentions  no  snowshoes. 

''This  statement  can  be  proved  in  two  weeks  from 
Fairbanks,  and  will  not  cost  much  money  to  prove 
— that  it  is  impossible  to  make  the  trip  without 
wearing  snowshoes.  No  man  would  make  the 
trip  with  snowshoes  and  not  mention  them." 

^^New  York  Times,  5  June,  1910. 
^^Ante,  page  54;  post,  pages  118,  119. 


74  MOUNT  Mckinley 

To  what  glaciers  now  does  Lloyd  refer  in  these 
paragraphs.  Evidently  only  to  the  Lower  Mc- 
Kinley  Glacier,  because  in  another  place  Lloyd 
says:  ''We  also  used  ice  creepers  in  climbing  and 
snowshoes  only  over  the  lower  glaciers;  "^^  which 
clearly  means  that  Lloyd's  party  did  not  use  snow- 
shoes  on  the  Northeast  ridge  and  above. 

These  attempts  at  censure  by  Lloyd  are  cer- 
tainly wide  of  the  mark  and  fall  of  themselves 
when  one  considers  that  Cook  came  up  to  the 
Northeast  ridge  from  the  east  and  not  from  Fair- 
banks; and  that  Cook  never  crossed  nor  said  he 
crossed  the  glaciers  on  which  Lloyd  used  snow- 
shoes.  Cook  never  was  on  the  Lower  McKinley 
Glacier  at  any  point  during  his  ascent  and,  there- 
fore, can  not  be  criticized  for  not  wearing  snow- 
shoes  in  a  place  where  he  never  was. 

Lloyd  himself,  however,  even  if  he  did  wear 
snowshoes  among  the  crevasses  of  the  Lower  Mc- 
Kinley Glacier,  certainly  took  unnecessary  risks 
higher  up,  for  he  says:  "We  used  no  ropes  in 
climbing."^*  Perhaps  a  hundred  thousand  ascents 
have  been  made  with  ropes  and  no  snowshoes.  It 
is  only  of  late  years  that  some  ascents  have  been 
made  with  skis,  but  ascents  made  with  snowshoes 
have  been  few  indeed.  And  the  experience  of 
mountain  climbers  is  all  in  favor  of  ropes  as  a 

^^Ante,  page  38. 
^*Ante,  page  38. 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  75 

safeguard.  Now  Cook  used  the  rope  thruout, 
and  even  if  he  did  not  use  snowshoes,  he  was  much 
safer  with  rope  and  no  snowshoes,  than  Lloyd  with 
snowshoes  and  no  rope. 

Mr.  Browne  denies  Dr.  Cook  in  The  Conquest 
of  Mount  McKinley  in  one  special  chapter  entitled 
''The  End  of  the  Polar  Controversy."  There  is 
not  one  word,  however,  about  the  North  Pole  or 
the  South  Pole  in  this  chapter,  which  is  taken  up 
with  the  ascent  of  a  little  peak  which  Browne 
named  Fake  Peak,  some  9,000  feet  high,  southeast 
of  Mount  McKinley,  on  the  east  side  of  Ruth 
Glacier,  about  half  way  between  the  terminal 
moraine  of  Ruth  Glacier  on  the  Chulitna  River  and 
the  base  of  Mount  McKinley.  But  why  the  ascent 
of  Fake  Peak  settles  the  (North)  Polar  controversy, 
why  it  wipes  Bradley  Land  from  the  map,  why  it 
explains  Cook-Land-Ice,  and  why  it  gets  rid  of  an 
endless  field  of  purple  snows  at  the  North  Pole, 
Browne  does  not  explain  in  a  single  sentence. 
Browne's  method  of  putting  an  end  to  the  Polar 
controversy  is  certainly  medieval  in  its  logic.  ^® 

Mr.  Browne  also  denies  Dr.  Cook's  ascent  of 
Mount  McKinley  and  his  method  of  denying  it 
is  equally  medieval  in  its  logic.  It  consists  in 
leaving  the  ascent  severely  alone  and  talking  of 
something  else.  This  something  else  is  likewise 
the  same  little  peak  to  which  Browne  gave  the 


35 


AntCy  page  65. 


76  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

name  Fake  Peak,  apparently  as  a  denial  of  Cook's 
ascent.  And  since  Mount  McKinley  can  truly  be 
nicknamed  Mount  Denial,  and  Mount  Foraker 
therefore  might  be  nicknamed  Denial's  Wife, 
Browne's  Fake  Peak  might  well  be  nicknamed 
Baby  Denial.  Browne  publishes  a  small  illustra- 
tion of  Baby  Denial  or  Fake  Peak  with  the  follow- 
ing rather  lengthy  title:  ''The  author  photo- 
graphing the  Fake  Peak.  Tucker  standing  where 
Barrill  stood.  This  view  including  the  author,  is 
used  for  a  special  reason.  As  short  a  time  ago  as 
March,  1913,  a  geographer  accused  the  author  of 
painting  (by  hand)  the  views  of  this  peak  with 
which  we  convicted  Dr.  Cook.  Photo,  by  H.  C. 
Parker."^®  Then  Browne  claims  that  his  illustra- 
tion, which  he  says  is  a  photograph  by  H.  C.  Par- 
ker and  which  he  admits  certain  people  think  was 
done  by  hand,  and  Cook's  photograph  of  the  top 
of  Mount  McKinley  represent  the  same  peak.  A 
comparison  of  Cook's  photograph  of  Mount  McKin- 
ley as  published  in  To  the  Top  of  the  Continent 
and  of  Browne's  illustrd,tion  of  Fake  Peak  as  pub- 
lished in  The  Conquest  of  Mount  McKinley,  there- 
fore, is  in  order. 

In  both  pictures  there  is  a  man  holding  a  flag. 
In  Cook's  photograph  the  flagman  is  standing  on 
a  rock  which  is  the  apparent  top  of  the  mountain. 
In  Browne's  illustration  the  flagman  is  standing  on 


36 


The  Conquest,  page^l22. 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS.  77 

some  rocks  below  the  apparent  top  of  the  moun- 
tain, which  apparent  top  is  a  pointed  snow  dome 
behind  and  above  the  flagman.  In  other  words, 
the  apparent  top  in  Cook's  photograph  of  Mount 
McKinley  and  the  apparent  top  in  Browne's  illus- 
tration of  Fake  Peak  are  different  tops. 

In  Browne's  illustration  of  Fake  Peak  there  is 
a  little  rock  rising  up  in  front  of  the  flagman. 
In  Cook's  photograph  of  Mount  McKinley  there 
is  no  such  rock.  Why  is  this?  Rocks  may  fall 
thru  gravity.  But  rocks  only  rise  on  a  mountain 
when  thrown  up  in  a  volcanic  eruption. 

In  Cook's  photograph  of  Mount  McKinley,  in 
front  of  and  below  the  flagman,  there  is  a  big  patch 
of  snow.  And  besides  this  big  patch,  there  are  other 
little  patches  on  ledges  and  crannies.  In  Browne's 
illustration  of  Fake  Peak,  all  the  visible  rocks  of 
Fake  Peak  are  wholly  bare  of  snow;  there  is  not 
the  faintest  particle  of  snow  on  any  ledge  nor  in 
any  crevices,  nor  are  the  rocks  anywhere  even 
powdered  with  snow.  Now  surely  if  these  pictures 
represented  the  same  peak,  the  rocks  to  which  snow 
clung  in  September  would  not  be  bare  of  snow  in 
June! 

In  Cook's  photograph  of  Mount  McKinley  the 
values,  to  use  an  artist's  term,  of  the  rocks  are 
consistent  thruout.  The  grays  of  the  rocks  spread 
across  their  surface  and  melt  into  the  grayish  white 
of    the    snows    without    any    visible    outline.      In 


78  MOUNT   McKINLEY. 

Browne's  illustration  of  Fake  Peak,  between  the 
snow  and  the  rocks  there  is  a  strong  continuous 
outline,  darker  in  value  than  the  rest  of  the  rock. 
It  is  something  like  the  braid  which  was  formerly 
sometimes  used  as  a  binding  on  some  cheap  coats 
for  men:  so  that  it  would  be  accurate  to  speak  of 
these  rocks  as  braided  rocks. 

In  Cook's  photograph  of  Mount  McKinley  and 
Browne's  illustration  of  Fake  Peak,  the  outline  of 
each  mountain  to  the  right  of  and  below  the  flag- 
man presents  what  might  be  called  four  steps  in 
the  rock,  which,  beginning  at  the  top,  may  be 
numbered  as  Rock  Steps  1,  2,  3,  4.  In  Browne's 
illustration  there  is  a  distant  range  of  mountains. 
In  Cook's  photograph  there  is  no  such  range  of 
mountains;  there  is,  however,  a  snowy  tooth 
beyond  the  Rock  steps,  and  this  snowy  tooth  looks 
as  if  it  were  part  of  the  Mount  McKinley  massif, 
possibly  a  snowy  point  of  the  South  ar^te.  Now  if 
Cook's  photograph  of  Mount  McKinley  and 
Browne's  illustration  of  Fake  Peak  are  enlarged  by 
photography  to  the  same  size  and  a  tracing  is  made 
of  the  outlines  of  the  two  mountains  in  the  enlarge- 
ments, it  will  be  found  that,  as  shown  in  the  ac- 
companying diagram,  the  outlines  are  not  identi- 
cal: they  agree  in  some  places,  but  they  disagree 
in  others.  The  outlines  of  Mount  McKinley  and 
of  Fake  Peak  back  of  the  flagmen  are  wholly 
different.     The  outlines  of  Cook's  and   Browne's 


80  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

Rock  Steps  1,  2,  3,  4,  are  more  nearly  alike,  but 
they  do  not  coincide.  The  outline  of  Browne's 
distant  mountain  rises  well  above  the  center  of 
Rock  Step  3  and  abuts  against  the  center  of  Rock 
Step  3.  The  outline  of  Cook's  snowy  tooth,  on 
the  contrary,  barely  reaches  the  center  of  Rock 
Step  4.  Cook's  snowy  tooth,  therefore,  is  way 
below  Browne's   distant  mountain. 

There  are  thus  at  least  six  differences  or 
divergences  between  Cook's  photograph  of  Mount 
McKinley  and  Browne's  illustration  of  Fake 
Peak.  1.  The  apparent  tops  of  the  two  moun- 
tains are  not  the  same.  2.  The  little  rock 
rising  before  the  flagman  in  Browne's  illustra- 
tion is  lacking  in  Cook's  photograph.  3.  The 
rocks  in  Cook's  photograph  are  covered  or  pow- 
dered with  snow  in  places  where  snow  is  lack- 
ing in  Browne's  illustration.  4.  The  values  in 
Cook's  rocks  are  uniform  thruout,  while  the  values 
in  Browne's  braided  rocks  vary  in  their  planes 
and  their  outlines.  5.  The  outline  of  Cook's 
Mount  McKinley  is  different  from  the  outline  of 
Browne's  Fake  Peak.  6.  The  distant  mountain 
in  Browne's  illustration  rises  way  above  the  little 
snowy  tooth  in  Cook's  photograph. 

These  various  differences  or  divergences  between 
Cook's  photograph  of  Mount  McKinley  and 
Browne's  illustration  of  Fake  Peak  certainly 
strongly  suggest  different  peaks:  so  strongly  indeed 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  81 

that  one  can  but  think  that  Browne  made  a  mis- 
take. The  differences  in  the  outhnes  and  the 
characteristics  of  the  two  mountains  and  the  differ- 
ences in  the  positions  of  Browne's  distant  mountain 
and  Cook's  snowy  tooth  are  so  pronounced,  so 
fundamental,  that  the  only  conclusion  which  seems 
possible  is  that  Cook's  photograph  of  Mount  Mc- 
Kinley  and  Browne's  illustration  of  Fake  Peak 
represent  different  peaks. 

That  there  are  differences  between  Cook's 
photograph  of  Mount  McKinley  and  Browne's 
illustration  of  Fake  Peak  was  first  noticed  by  Mr. 
E.  C.  Rost,  of  Chicago,  an  expert  photographer, 
to  whom  I  am  much  indebted  for  calling  my 
attention  to  the  matter.  And  it  may  be  well 
to  add  that  it  is  an  easy  matter  for  anyone 
interested  in  the  subject  to  prove  the  differ- 
ences in  the  shape  of  the  two  mountains  for 
himself.  All  that  need  be  done  is  to  have  some 
professional  photographer  make  enlargements  to 
the  same  scale  of  Cook's  photograph  of  Mount 
McKinley  and  of  Browne's  illustration  of  Fake 
Peak;  then  to  trace  the  outlines  of  the  enlarge- 
ments: when  the  divergences  will  be  apparent 
beyond  all  cavill. 

There  are  numerous  and  excellent  photographs 
by  Messrs.  Parker,  La  Voy  and  Browne,  published 
in  The  Conquest  of  Mount  McKinley.  Special 
attention    may    be    called    to    those    of    Professor 


82  MOUNT  McKINLEY 

Parker  of  "The  Great  Gorge"''  and  of  ''Mount 
Huntington ;"^^  those  of  Mr.  Browne  of  ''Going 
Strong,"'^  of  "Mount  Dan,"'"  and  of  "Approach- 
ing the  Pass;*^  and  those  of  Mr.  La  Voy  of  "The 
Col"*2  and  "The  Backbone."*'  In  all  of  these  the 
photographic  values  are  beautiful:  the  rocks,  some- 
times snow  powdered  on  their  cracks  and  ledges, 
melt  with  delicious  naturalness  into  the  snows: 
there  are  no  sharp,  hard  outlines  between  the  rock 
planes  and  the  snow  planes.  In  these  photographs 
the  majesty  of  the  mountains  is  revealed  as  clearly 
as  in  the  photographs  of  those  master  mountain 
photographers.  Sella  and  Donkin. 

Photography  is  so  closely  akin  to  art,  that  a  few 
words  about  Mr.  Browne's  artistic  efforts  will  not 
seem  out  of  place  here.  His  men  and  animals  are 
distinctly  good.  His  pictures  of  the  Alaskan  Brown 
Bear'*  and  of  the  White  Sheep *^  have  plenty  of 
life  and  action.  The  men  and  horses  in  his  India 
ink  drawing  of  "The  1906  Expedition  Swimming 

^^  The  Conquest,  page  122. 
^^  The  Conquest,  page  168. 
^^  The  Conquest,  page  72. 
*"  The  Conquest,  page  80. 
*^  The  Conquest,  page  240. 
^^  The  Conquest,  page  174. 
^^  The  Conquest,  page  234. 
^*  The  Conquest,  page  74. 
*^  The  Conquest,  page  258. 


and"^mountain  climbers'  proofs.  83 

the  Pack  Train "*^  are  strong  and  virile:  they 
have  lots  of  snap.  Some  of  Browne^s  landscapes 
are  most  successful.  The  view  of  Mount  McKin- 
ley  from  the  south  "^^  may  be  mentioned  as  a  re- 
markable instance  of  conquering  the  enormous 
difficulties  of  painting  a  great  mountain:  it  has 
atmosphere,  values  and  color:  none  of  which  is  easy 
to  get.  Some  of  Browne's  mountain  drawing,  how- 
ever, is  not  up  to  this  standard,  as,  for  instance,  the 
mountains  in  ''The  1906  Expedition  Swimming 
the  Pack  Train."  *^  In  the  best  mountain  draw- 
ing, the  anatomy  of  the  mountains  is  worked 
out  from  the  center  to  the  edges,  and  the 
outline  is  lost  and  found.  Excellent  and  easily 
accessible  examples  of  such  mountain  drawings 
are  Turner's  ''The  Gates  of  the  Hills"  and  Turn- 
er's "Pass  of  Faido,'"'^  and  Edward  Whymper's 
magnificent  illustrations,  perhaps  the  most  perfect 
and  artistic  drawings  of  high  mountains  ever 
made.^  Browne's  mountains  in  "The  1906  Expe- 
dition" are  not  done  on  this  principle;  their 
anatomical  structure,  their  gullies  and  ridges,  are 
not  sufficiently  delineated,  and  they  are  bounded 

*^  The  Conquest,  page  12. 

^'' The  Conquest,  Frontispiece. 

*^The  Conquest,  page  12. 

*®John  Ruskin:    Modern  Painters,  New  York,  John  Wiley 
and  Sons,  1879,  Vol.  IV,  Frontispiece,  and  page  24. 

^^  Scrambles  Amongst  the  Alps,  1871,  passim. 


84  MOUNT  McKINLEY 

by  hard,  tight  outlines.  The  peak  to  the  left  es- 
pecially, has  a  long,  even,  almost  unbroken  outline: 
and  such  continuous  outlines  are  not  found  in  the 
best  art. 

After  tilting  with  the  windmill  of  Fake  Peak, 
Browne  apparently  thinks  it  unnecessary  to  dis- 
cuss analytically  Cook's  climb  from  Ruth  Glacier 
to  the  top  of  Mount  McKinley.  He  does  not  pay 
the  slightest  attention  to  Cook's  long,  detailed 
and  careful  narrative  of  his  ascent  in  1906 
of  Mount  McKinley  by  the  exact  route  above 
12,000  feet  which  Browne  claims  he  himself  fol- 
lowed in  1912:  he  does  not  touch  on  any  of 
the  points  in  mountaineering  which  must  be  con- 
sidered by  any  mountain  historian  studying  the 
subject:  he  does  not  examine  the  heights  climbed 
nor  the  distances  traversed  daily:  he  does  not 
speak  of  Cook's  description  of  the  Northeast  ridge: 
he  does  not  refer  to  Cook's  account  of  the  Upper 
McKinley  Glacier.  Browne  simply  ignores  every- 
thing connected  with  Cook's  ascent  of  Mount  Mc- 
Kinley from  Ruth  Glacier  to  the  top. 

The  ^' Index"  of  Browne's  The  Conquest  of  Mount 
McKinley  in  itself  alone  verifies  these  statements. 
There  is  an  index  of  the  1910  trip  on  the  Ruth 
Glacier  and  the  surrounding  peaks,  and  in  this 
index  Cook's  name  appears  in  nine  headings. 
There  is  also  an  index  of  the  1912  trip  up 
the    Northeast    ridge    and    the    Upper    McKinley 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS.  85 

Glacier,  and  in  this  index  Cook's  name  does  not 
appear.  The  "Index"  of  The  Conquest  is  element- 
ary proof  that  Browne  entirely  shelves  Cook's 
ascent. 

But  no  climber  can  thus  dispose  of  a  rival 
climber's  claims  without  investigating  them.  "A 
certain  number  of  climbers  have  played  the 
part  of  critics,  but  this  Browne  has  not  done. 
To  criticize  anybody  or  anything  impHes  talking  or 
writing  about  that  person  or  that  thing.  You  can- 
not criticize  Leonardo  da  Vinci  by  abusing  Rubens. 
I  say  "abusing  Rubens,"  for  to-day  criticism  has 
come  to  mean  an  unfavorable  or  hostile  opinion  of 
something  which  has  been  done  or  of  some  idea 
which  has  been  enunciated,  and  it  is  almost 
always  tinged  with  more  or  less,  generally  more, 
acerbity.  But  Browne  does  not  discuss  in  any 
wise,  from  the  standpoint  of  a  mountain  historian, 
Cook's  ascent  of  Mount  McKinley  from  Ruth 
Glacier  to  the  top.  And  this  is  something  which 
must  be  done  by  anyone  who  attempts  to  pass  on 
the  claims  of  the  various  climbers  of  Mount  Mc- 
Kinley. 

Mr.  Browne  denies  also,  not  directly,  but  in- 
ferentially,  the  ascent  of  Mount  McKinley  by  the 
Lloyd  miners  party.  He  does  not  make  any  ex- 
amination of  Lloyd's  narrative,  any  more  than  he 
does  of  Cook's  narrative.  Browne  does  not  seem 
aware  of  the  fact  that  Lloyd  says  he  went  up  the 


86  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

South  Peak,  as  well  as  the  North  Peak.  He  does 
not  place  Lloyd's  name  in  the  ''Index"  of  The  Con- 
quest of  Mount  McKinley.  In  fact  he  totally  ig- 
nores everything  about  Lloyd's  ascent,  except  that 
he  says  that  he  did  not  see  the  flag  pole  which 
Lloyd  states  he  raised  on  the  North  Peak.  Browne 
writes :^^  ''Report  has  it  that  the  Lloyd  Mount 
McKinley  party  had  reached  this  peak  or  one  of  its 
northern  shoulders  and  there  raised  a  pole  above 
a  pile  of  rocks.  *  *  *  We  not  only  saw  no  sign 
of  a  flag  pole,  but  it  is  our  concerted  opinion  that 
the  Northern  Peak  is  more  inaccessible  than  its 
higher  southern  sister."  This  meager  notice  of 
the  Lloyd  ascent,  therefore,  shows  Browne  denying, 
not  absolutely  but  nearly  so,  the  success  of  the 
mining  party,  much  as  he  does  that  of  Dr.  Cook. 
Browne's  remarks  prove  that  if  the  miners  had 
not  planted  a  pole  near  the  top  and  if  Stuck  had 
not  stated  that  he  had  seen  this  pole,  the  miners 
ascent  would  have  been  discredited.  Cook,  un- 
fortunately, had  no  such  pole  to  leave  behind. 
/^But  since  Browne's  denial  of  Lloyd's  claims  is 
'  proved  incorrect,  it  implies  almost  to  a  certainty 
that  his  denial  of  Cook's  claims  is  also  incorrect. 
Browne's  attitude  towards  Lloyd,  in  brief,  is  much 
the  same  as  his  attitude  towards  Cook,  and  his 
method  of  denying  Cook  and  Lloyd  consists,  in 
the  main,  in  omitting  almost  all  the  facts  and  in 

**  The  Conquest,  pages  340,  341. 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS.  87 

paying  no  attention  to  anything  Cook  or  Lloyd 
said  they  did. 

Archdeacon  Stuck,  in  his  turn,  likewise  denies 
his  predecessors,  and  he  also  is  not  convincing. 
First  because  he  is  the  most  interested  witness  of 
all.  This  is  easily  demonstrated.  Browne  and 
Parker  admit  that  they  did  not  reach  the  summit 
of  Mount  McKinley.  If  then  Cook  and  Lloyd 
could  be  proved  not  to  have  reached  the  summit 
of  Mount  McKinley,  Stuck  could  claim  that  his 
party  made  the  first  ascent.  It  is  readily  apparent 
that  were  Cook  and  Lloyd  discredited  Stuck  would 
be  the  gainer.  And  Stuck  certainly  does  state 
flatly  that  Cook  and  Lloyd  did  not  get  to  the  top 
of  Mount  McKinley,  and  he  also  certainly  does 
claim  that  he  himself  made  the  first  ascent  of 
Mount  McKinley!  A  claim  which  he  formulates 
most  naively  in  one  instance  by  saying  ''So  that  it 
seemed  as  if  the  mountain  top  had  waited  for  us."^^ 

From  the  following  correspondence,  which  was 
published  in  the  New  York  Sun,  it  may  be 
gathered  also  that  Archdeacon  Stuck  is  not  suf- 
ficiently acquainted  with  the  history  of  mountain- 
eering to  criticize  comparatively  mountain  ascents. 

"K2. 

"To  THE  Editor  of  the  Sun — Sir:  In  the 
November  Scrihner's  Magazine^  page  552,  Arch- 
deacon Stuck  makes  the  following  statement:   ''The 

^^Scribner's  Magazine,  1913,  page  532. 


88  MOUNT   McKlNLEY 

English  geographers  prefer  K2,  the  surveyor's 
designation  of  the  second  highest  peak  of  the 
Himalayas,  which  the  Duke  of  Abruzzi  climbed 
in  1909,  the  highest  point  ever  reached  by  man." 
This  will  undoubtedly  be  news  to  all  mountain 
climbers  and  geographers,  and  especially  to  the 
Duke  of  the  Abruzzi  himself,  to  whom  the  Arch- 
deacon should  cable  at  once  the  glad  tidings. 

(Signed)  ''Edwin  Swift  Balch. 
''Philadelphia,  Pa.,  December  30." "' 

"K2. 

"To  THE  Editor  of  The  Sun — Sir:  I  have 
waited  more  than  two  months  for  Mr.  Edwin 
Swift  Balch's  letter,  and  am  glad  that  he  has  at 
length  discovered  my  mistake.  I  discovered  it 
myself  weeks  before  the  article  was  published  in 
Scrihner^s  Magazine,  but  not  in  time  to  get  the 
correction  made. 

"The  annoying  thing  about  it  is  that  K2  and 
the  Duke  of  the  Abruzzi  were  a  mere  flourish  of 
embellishment  to  show  how  much  I  knew  about 
mountain  climbing,  dragged  in  by  the  scruff  of  their 
necks,  so  to  speak. 

"The  main  fault  lies  with  the  new  Encyclopedia 
Britannica:  If  Mr.  Balch  will  look  up  K2  in  that 
interesting  work  he  will  find  the  authority  for  my 
statement.     I  was  surprised  at  it  when  I  read  it, 

^  The  Sun,  New  York,  Wednesday,  31  December,  1913. 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  89 

but  supposed  that  in  my  exile  in  the  north  I  had 
missed  the  account  of  the  exploit:  it  did  not  enter 
my  head  to  doubt  the  Britannica.  Now  that  the 
blow  has  fallen  I  shall  sleep  in  peace.  But  for 
such  a  sarcastic  gentleman,  how  dilatory  Mr. 
Edwin  Swift  Balch  has  been! 

(Signed)     "Hudson  Stuck, 

''  Archdeacon  of  the  Yukon. 

''New  York,  January  2."^ 

Archdeacon  Stuck's  admission  in  this  letter, 
that  he  discovered,  weeks  before  his  article  was 
published,  that  one  of  his  statements  was  a  mis- 
take, is  noteworthy. 

Archdeacon  Stuck's  remarks  about  Dr.  Cook  do 
not  overflow  with  the  milk  of  human  kindness. 
He  expresses  disapproval  of  To  the  Top  of  the 
Continent  by  saying  that  it  was  perused  by 
''man  after  man  from  the  Kantishna  diggings, 
and  the  acute  way  in  which  they  detected  the 
place  where  vague  'fine  writing'  began  to  be 
substituted  for  definite  description."^^  Stuck  jumps 
on  Cook  for  speaking  "about  'the  heaven- 
scraped  granite  of  the  top;'"  and  also  says  "nor  is 
the  conformation  of  the  summit  in  the  least  like  the 
photograph  printed  as  the   'top  of  Mt.   McKin- 

^  The  Sun,  New  York,  Saturday,  3  January,  1914. 
^^  The  Ascent,  page  167. 


90  MOUNT  Mckinley 

jgy  M>56  jjg  criticizes  Cook  also  by  saying  that 
"In  his  account  of  the  view  from  the  summit  he 
speaks  of  'the  ice  blink  caused  by  the  extensive 
glacial  sheets  north  of  the  Saint  Elias  group/  which 
would  surely  be  out  of  the  range  of  any  possible 
vision,  but  does  not  mention  at  all  the  master 
sight  that  bursts  upon  the  eye  when  the  summit  is 
actually  gained — the  great  mass  of  '  Denali's  Wife ' 
or  Mount  Foraker,  filling  all  the  middle  distance. 
We  were  all  agreed  that  no  one  who  had  ever  stood 
on  the  top  of  Denali  in  clear  weather  could  fail  to 
mention  the  sudden  splendid  sight  of  this  great 
mountain."  ^^  Finally  Stuck  denies  positively  Cook's 
ascent  in  the  following  words:  ''It  is  quite  im- 
possible to  follow  his  course  from  the  description 
given  in  his  book,  'To  the  Top  of  the  Continent.' 
This  much  may  be  said:  from  the  summit  of  the 
mountain,  on  a  clear  day,  it  seemed  evident  that 
no  ascent  was  possible  from  the  south  side  of  the 
range  at  all.  That  was  the  judgment  of  all  four 
members  of  our  party."  ^^ 

It  seems  curious  that  "man  after  man  from  the 
Kantishna  diggings"  was  able  to  detect  "the  place 
where  vague  '  fine  writing '  began  to  be  substituted 
for  definite  description"  in  To  the  Top  of  the  Con- 
tinent.    These    Alaska  miners    must    have    been 


^  The  Ascent,  page  165. 
"  The  Ascent,  page  165. 
^  The  Ascent,  page  165. 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  91 

cleverer,  better  educated,  and  more  thoroly  versed 
in  mountain  lore  than  the  reviewer  in  The  Alpine 
Journal^^  who  never  noticed  this  change.  Person- 
ally it  seems  to  me  that  there  is  no  break  in  style 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  book  which, 
on  the  contrary,  shows  the  same  unusual  artistically 
descriptive  powers  as  My  Attainment  of  the  Pole. 
In  attacking  Cook  for  speaking  of  granite  at  the 
top  of  Mount  McKinley,  Stuck  is  oblivious  of  the 
fact  that  the  first  week  in  June  and  the  second 
week  in  September  are  different  times  of  the  year, 
and  he  is  doubtless  unaware  of  the  fact  that  a 
mountain  may  be  buried  in  snow  and  ice  in  June 
and  show  outcrops  of  rock  in  September.  That 
Stuck  found  the  top  of  Mount  McKinley  snow 
covered  and  Cook  found  some  bare  rock  may  be 
explained  easily  by  perfectly  natural  causes,  and 
this  matter  will  be  discussed  later.  ^  Stuck  con- 
demns Cook  for  speaking  about  the  ice-blink 
above  the  Saint  Elias  group,  which  he  con- 
siders would  be  ''out  of  the  range  of  any 
possible  vision"  from  Mount  McKinley.  In  so 
doing  Stuck  shows  that  he  is  not  acquainted 
with  the  history  of  polar  exploration:  for  the 
ice-bhnk  carries  for  almost  inconceivable  dis- 
tances. Stuck  also  says  that  Cook  mentions  this 
ice-blink    in    his    account    of   the   view   from   the 


^^ArUe,  pages  69,  70,  71. 
^Post,  pages  119,  120. 


92  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

summit,  while  the  fact  is  that  Cook  speaks  of  it  on 
leaving  his  18,400  foot  camp  in  the  early  morning.- 
But  this  occurrence  will  also  be  examined  further 
on.®^  Stuck's  animadversions  on  Cook  for  not 
speaking  of  Mount  Foraker  will  likewise  be  noticed 
later/2 

Stuck's  chief  denials  of  Cook,  however,  are  first 
his  statement  that  it  is  quite  impossible  to  follow 
Cook's  course  from  the  description  given  in  To  the 
Top  of  the  Continent.  But  why  it  is  impossible  for 
Stuck  to  follow,  in  the  spirit.  Cook's  course  from 
Cook's  description  must  remain  an  enigma,  since 
by  comparing  Cook's  description  in  To  the  Top  of 
the  Continent  with  Stuck's  description  in  The  Ascent 
of  Denali,  it  is  evident  that  Stuck  followed,  in  the 
flesh,  step  by  step,  Cook's  course  from  12,000  feet 
to  the  top.  Stuck's  second  chief  denial  of  Cook 
is  his  statement  that  in  the  judgment  of  all  four 
members  of  Stuck's  party  no  ascent  of  Mount 
McKinley  was  possible  from  the  South.  Well, 
supposing  it  is  not:  what  has  that  to  do  with 
the  matter?  Cook  did  not  ascend,  and  nowhere 
claims  to  have  ascended,  Mount  McKinley  from 
the  South.  Cook  says  he  ascended  from  the  East 
and  the  North,  by  the  Northeast  ridge,  and  by 
the  Upper  Northern  McKinley  Glacier:  the  iden- 
tical route   Stuck    says  he    himself  ascended  by» 

^^Post,  pages  112,  113. 
^'^Post,  pages  120,  121. 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  93 

But  Stuck  does  not  examine  Cook's  narrative: 
he  passes  over  almost  all  the  facts  in  silence  and 
denies  Cook  abruptly  in  two  assertions  which 
should  never  mislead  any  mountain  historian. 

Of  the  Lloyd  expedition,  Archdeacon  Stuck  has 
a  good  deal  to  say.  He  grants  their  ascent  of 
the  North  Peak  of  Mount  McKinley  but  says 
of  their  climb  "as  to  which  feat  a  great  deal  of 
incredulity  has  existed  in  Alaska,  not  without 
some  reason."  ^^ 

Stuck  says  the  Lloyd  party  discovered  the  route 
as  far  as  the  Grand  Basin  at  16,000  feet,  which 
Browne  and  Stuck  followed,®*  and  repeats  this 
statement  several  times.  ''This  ridge,  that  the 
pioneer  climbers  of  1910  went  up  at  one  march."  ^ 
"There  is  only  one  way  up  the  mountain,  and 
Lloyd  and  his  companions  discovered  it."®'^  "To 
Lloyd  *  *  *  probably  also  belongs  the  original 
discovery  of  the  route  that  made  the  ascent  pos- 
sible." *^^  "The  Lloyd  expedition  was  the  first 
to  discover  the  only  approach  by  which  the  moun- 
tain may  be  climbed."®^  "On  10th  April  *  *  * 
they  went  up  the  ridge  to  the  Grand  Basin,  crossed 

^Scribner's  Magazine,  1913,  page  546. 

^^The  Ascent,  pages  17,  18. 

^  The  Ascent,  page  42. 

^  The  Ascent,  page  177. 

®^  The  Ascent,  page  174. 

**  The  Ascent,  page  168. 


94  MOUNT  Mckinley 

the  ice  to  the  North  Peak,  and  proceeded  to  climb 
it."^« 

Stuck  reports  that  all  the  members  of  his  party 
sighted  Lloyd's  flagstaff  on  the  North  Peak  of 
Mount  McKinley.^" 

Stuck  also  says  of  Lloyd  himself:  ''In  that 
account  Lloyd  is  made  to  claim  unequivocally  that 
he  himself  reached  both  summits  of  the  mountain. 
*  *  *  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Lloyd  himself  reached 
neither  summit,  nor  was  much  above  the  glacier 
floor."  ^^ 

Archdeacon  Stuck's  statements  about  the  Lloyd 
expedition  show  in  the  first  place  that  the  natives 
of  Alaska  doubted  the  ascent.  Stuck  says  ''not 
without  some  reason."  What  reason?  There  is 
no  apparent  reason,  beyond  the  fact  that  stay-at- 
homes  are  always  prone  to  doubt  travelers:  and 
this  is  due  not  to  reasoning,  it  is  due  to  human 
incredulity  in  the  unusual. 

In  the  next  place  Stuck  gives  to  the  Lloyd  party 
the  credit  for  discovering  the  easiest  route  up  the 
mountain.  This  is  accurate  in  regard  to  the  stretch 
from  the  northwestern  base  of  Mount  McKinley 
up  to  the  Northeast  ridge  at  about  12,000  feet. 
From  there  to  the  top,  however,  the  easiest  route 


^^  The  Ascent,  page  170. 
""^  Ante,  pages  55,  57. 
^^  The  Ascent,  page  171. 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  95 

had  been  described  and  the  description  pubHshed 
by  Dr.  Cook,  three  years  before  the  Lloyd  ascent. 

Third,  Stuck,  backed  by  the  testimony  of  his 
three  companions,  proved  the  ascent  of  the  North 
peak  of  Mount  McKinley  by  the  Lloyd  party. 

Stuck  positively  and  empirically  asserts  that  the 
Lloyd  party  did  not  ascend  the  South  Peak  of 
Mount  McKinley,  and  that  Lloyd  himseK  did  not 
ascend  much  above  the  glacier  floor;  that  is,  that 
Lloyd  did  not  climb  even  the  Northeast  ridge. 
Stuck  does  not  offer  any  evidence  for  his  denial 
of  Lloyd's  ascent  except  that  he  says  that  some  of 
Lloyd's  companions  stated  that  Lloyd  did  not  go 
to  the  top.  Stuck  claims  that  *'He  has  been  at 
the  pains  of  talking  with  every  member  of  the 
actual  climbing  party  with  a  view  to  sifting  the 
matter  thoroughly.  For,  largely  by  the  fault  of 
these  men  themselves,  through  a  mistaken  though 
not  unchivalrous  sense  of  loyalty  to  the  organizer 
of  the  expedition,  much  incredulity  was  aroused  in 
Alaska  touching  their  exploit."  ^^  Now  if  Lloyd 
did  not  ascend  the  last  8,000  feet  of  the  mountain, 
how  in  the  world  was  Lloyd  able  to  give  Mr. 
Thompson,  Editor  of  the  Fairbanks  News  Miner^ 
a  long,  naive,  and  evidently  truthful  account  of 
the  ascent  of  both  summits.  When  mountain 
historians  of  the  future  compare  Lloyd's  statements, 
based  undoubtedly  on  first-hand  knowledge  of  the 
^^  The  Ascent,  pages  170,  171. 


96  MOUNT  Mckinley 

mountain,  with  Stuck's  empirical  denial  of  these 
statements,  there  cannot  be  much  doubt  as  to 
what  their  verdict  will  be. 

Stuck  takes  pains  to  make  it  thoroly  known  that 
Browne  and  Parker  did  not  complete  the  ascent 
of  Mount  McKinley  by  three  or  four  hundred  feet 
in  altitude,  and  that  they  were  about  one  mile 
from  the  summit  when  they  stopped.  ^^  He  rubs 
this  fact  well  in  in  many  casual  innuendoes  in  his 
book:  ''Parker,  Browne  and  La  Voy  *  *  * 
reached  a  spot  within  three  or  four  hundred  feet 
of  the  top  of  the  mountain."^*  ''The  only  expedi- 
tion *  *  *  organized  by  Professor  Parker  and 
Mr.  Belmore  Browne  in  1912,  which  came  within 
an  ace  of  success." ^^  "The  falling  short  of  com- 
plete success  of  this  very  gallant  mountaineering 
attempt  seems  to  have  been  due,  first  to  the  mis- 
take of  approaching  the  mountain  by  the  most 
difficult  route  *  *  *  ^j^g  mistake  of  relying 
upon  canned  pemmican  for  the  main  food  supply."^® 
It  is  of  course  permissible,  if  unkindly,  to  gloat  over 
the  not  quite  complete  success  of  Browne  and 
Parker's  plucky  attempts  to  ascend  Mount  Mc- 
Kinley; but  it  is  not  permissible,  at  least  not  if 
one  wishes  to  be  accurate,  to  say  they  were  beaten 

''^The  Ascent,  note,  pages  97,  98. 

^^  The  Ascent,  page  41. 

^^  The  Ascent,  page  175. 

^«  The  Ascent,  pages  178,  179. 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS.  97 

by  taking  the  wrong  route  and  by  canned  pemmi- 
can:  Browne  and  Parker  were  beaten,  as  they  say 
themselves  they  were,  by  blizzards  against  which 
no  man  could  have  conquered/^ 

^^Just  as  this  book  was  going  to  the  press,  I  received 
from  Mr.  Ernest  C.  Rost  a  copy  of  his  critical  monograph, 
Mount  McKinUy,  its  bearing  on  the  Polar  Controversy,  New 
York,  1914,  in  which  he  discusses  analytically  Cook's  photo- 
graph of  Mount  McKinley  and  Browne's  illustration  of  Fake 
Peak. 


MOUNT  Mckinley  and  mountain  climbers'  proofs.     99 


IV. 

COMPARISONS. 
When  one  examines  the  narratives  of  each  of  the 
four  explorers  separately,  they  convey,  in  all  four 
cases,  a  sense  of  the  genuineness  of  the  narratives. 
Dr.  Cook's  account  in  To  the  Top  of  the  Continent 
gives  details  about  his  equipment,  the  weights 
carried,  the  distances  traversed  and  the  vertical 
heights  ascended  each  day,  the  times  of  the  daily 
marches  and  the  time  of  the  entire  journey,  which 
are  manifestly  possible  and  which  in  themselves 
carry  conviction  of  the  reality  of  his  ascent. 
Lloyd's  story  in  The  New  York  Times,  if  rough  and 
muddled,  nevertheless  bears  all  the  earmarks  of 
veracity.  Mr.  Browne's  statements  in  The  Con- 
quest of  Mount  McKinley,  about  the  equipment, 
the  weights  and  the  manner  in  which  they  were 
carried,  the  distances  traversed  in  a  day's  journey, 
the  vertical  heights  ascended  in  the  given  times, 
and  above  all  Browne's  admission  that  he  had  not 
stood  quite  on  the  very  top  of  Mount  McKinley, 
carry  conviction  that  Browne  did  what  he  said  he 
did.  Archdeacon  Stuck,  from  his  statements  in 
The  Ascent  of  Denali,  judging  from  his  equipment, 
the  weights  carried,  the  distances  traversed  and 
the  vertical  heights  daily  ascended,  and  the  time 
of  his  entire  journey,  must  also  be  credited  with 


100  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

giving  details  which  place  his  ascent  among  possi- 
ble ascents. 

When  on  the  other  hand  one  examines  the  narra- 
tives of  the  four  explorers  comparatively,  many 
coincidences  will  be  noticed  which  cast  much  light 
on  the  four  ascents.  And  in  looking  at  each  narra- 
tive, the  training  and  previous  experience  of  each 
narrator  should  be  taken  into  account.  Dr.  Cook 
is  a  graduated  M.D.,  who  had  spent  one  winter 
in  the  Arctic  with  Admiral  Peary  and  one  in  the 
Antarctic  with  Captain  de  Gerlache,  and  who, 
previous  to  his  successful  ascent  of  Mount  Mc- 
Kinley,  had  carried  out  also  two  journeys  in  its 
foothills.  His  winter  in  North  Greenland,  and  his 
winter  in  West  Antarctica,  the  first  spent  by  man 
beyond  the  Antarctic  Circle,  had  made  of  Cook  an 
expert  on  ice  and  snow,  and  they  explain  why  he 
was  so  much  better  acquainted  than  most  moun- 
taineers with  all  the  details,  such  as  how  to  build 
snow  houses,  connected  with  ice  and  snow  travel. 
Examined  comparatively  with  the  other  narratives, 
Cook's  narrative,  both  in  its  observations  and  its 
descriptions,  is  the  most  satisfactory  of  the  four. 
And  in  examining  it,  one  must  always  bear  in 
mind  that  it  is  the  first  account,  published  three 
years  before  any  other,  of  the  easiest  route  up 
Mount  McKinley,  of  the  Northeast  arete,  of  the 
Upper  McKinley  glacier  and  its  guardian  granite 
rocks,  of  the  ridges  leading  to  the  North  and  South 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  101 

Peaks,  and  -  of  the  North  and  South  Peaks  them- 
selves. 

Lloyd's  party  was  made  up  of  poorly  educated 
men,  who  had  had  no  previous  mountain  experi- 
ence, only  experience  on  more  level  snow-covered 
ground,  before  their  ascent.  And  owing  to  their 
lack  of  literary  training  and  of  mountain  experi- 
ence, Lloyd's  narrative  is  the  most  difficult  of 
the  four  to  unravel,  and  his  observations  are  the 
hardest  to  use  comparatively,  altho  of  his  truth- 
fulness there  can  be  no  doubt. 

Messrs.  Browne  and  Parker  are  educated  men, 
who  had  both  had  some  mountain  training,  some 
of  it  in  previous  attempts  on  Mount  McKinley, 
one  of  these  with  Cook.  Browne  himself  draws 
landscape  and  animals,  which  implies  that  he  is 
an  observer  of  outdoor  nature.  His  narrative  is 
clear  and  forcible,  and  unintentionally  it  corrob- 
orates and  verifies  Cook's  narrative  and  Lloyd's 
narrative,  and  is  itself  verified  by  Cook's  narra- 
tive. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Stuck  was  born  in  England  and 
spent  his  youth  there.  ^^  He  is  an  archdeacon, 
which  means  of  course  that  he  is  an  educated  man. 
Before  his  ascent  of  Mount  McKinley,  Stuck  had 
done  some  climbing  in  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and 
had  ascended  Mount  Tacoma.  He  apparently  dis- 
approves of  American  scientific  men,  and  because 

"^^  Who's  Who  in  America.    Vol.  VIII,  1914;  1915. 


102  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

he  met  one  scientist  who  was  not  familiar  with  the 
novels  of  Dickens,  he  proposes  to  suppress  *^  illit- 
erate Ph.D.'s.'"'^  His  narrative  seems  less  direct 
and  less  scientific  than  the  narratives  of  Cook  and 
Browne:  despite  which,  many  of  his  statements, 
perhaps  unwittingly,  corroborate  Cook,  Lloyd  and 
Browne,  and  one  or  two  of  his  observations 
are  verified  by  the  narratives  of  Cook,  Lloyd 
and  Browne.  In  fact,  the  four  narratives,  when 
compared,  verify  each  other.  In  comparing  now 
the  four  narratives  in  the  succeeding  pages,  it 
must  be  noted  that  the  figures  at  the  heads  of 
the  following  paragraphs  refer  to  the  figures  in 
Chapter  II,  and  that  the  comparisons  in  each 
case  are  drawn  from  the  corresponding  passages 
in  the  parallel  columns. 

1.  The  first  part  of  Cook's  ascent  cannot  be 
compared  at  all  with  the  first  part  of  the  ascents 
of  his  three  followers.  It  can  be  compared  some- 
what with  the  account  of  Browne's  attempt  in 
1910,  on  which  Browne  traveled  some  distance  at 
least  up  Ruth  Glacier.  As  Browne,  however,  did 
not  reach  the  Northeast  ridge  by  this  route  and  as 
Cook's  journey  was  a  rapid  dash  over  unknown, 
uncharted,  and  unnamed  ground,  it  is  impossible 
to  compare  Cook's  and  Browne's  accounts  of  this 
part  of  their  trips  satisfactorily.  Lloyd,  Browne 
and  Stuck  seem  to  have  followed  the  same  route  to 

''^The  Ascent,  pages  HO-114. 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  103 

the  Northeast  ridge  and  their  accounts  of  the 
beginning  of  their  trips  can  therefore  be  compared. 
Cook  reached  the  Northeast  ridge  from  the  east, 
Lloyd,  Browne  and  Stuck  reached  it  from  the 
west,  and  all  four  parties  struck  it  apparently  at 
about  the  same  spot,  between  about  11,500  feet 
and  12,000  feet,  and  from  there  on,  therefore,  the 
four  ascents  can  be  compared  thruout. 

2.  Cook  traveled  ''light"  and  quickly;  Lloyd, 
Browne  and  Stuck  traveled  ''heavy"  and  slowly. 
For  every  mile  that  Cook  traveled,  Lloyd,  Browne 
and  Stuck  traveled  three  or  five  or  even  more  miles. 
Cook,  both  going  and  coming,  marched  straight 
ahead;  his  Arctic  and  Antarctic  training  having 
taught  him  how  to  reduce  his  baggage  to  the  in- 
dispensable minimum  for  a  long  journey  over  ice 
and  snow.  Lloyd,  Browne  and  Stuck,  on  the 
contrary,  advanced  supplies  some  distance,  then 
returned  over  the  same  ground  for  more  supplies 
which  they  carried  forward  again,  and  in  certain 
parts  of  their  journey  they  repeated  this  perform- 
ance a  second  or  even  a  third  time,  thus  going  three 
or  five  or  seven  times  over  the  same  ground.  The 
mass  of  outfit  and  the  weights  that  the  Lloyd, 
Browne  and  Stuck  parties  staggered  along  under 
were  indeed  so  tremendous  that  it  seems  sur- 
prising that  they  could  carry  them  at  all. 
Stuck's  party  might  almost  be  considered  to 
have  had  a  streak  of  luck  when  one  of  the  party 


104  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

dropped  a  match  into  the  baggage  while  his  com- 
panion was  not  looking.  The  back-breaking  piles 
of  impedimenta  are  sufficient  to  explain  why  Lloyd, 
Browne  and  Stuck  were  so  much  longer  on  their 
ascents  than  was  Cook.  In  fact  Cook's  times  have 
just  about  the  proper  relation  they  should  have 
to  Lloyd's,  Browne's  and  Stuck's  times,  and  afford 
a  distinct  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  Cook's 
achievement. 

3.  Cook,  Lloyd  probably,  Browne,  and  Stuck  all 
struck  the  Northeast  ridge  at  about  the  same  alti- 
tude, somewheres  between  11,500  feet  and  12,000 
feet,  at  what  must  have  been  about  the  same  place. 
-  4.  Cook  says  he  climbed  the  Northeast  ridge. 
Lloyd  apparently  climbed  the  Northeast  ridge. 
Browne  says  he  climbed  the  Northeast  ridge. 
Stuck  says  he  climbed  the  Northeast  ridge.  Why 
this  singular  unanimity?  Apparently  because  the 
Northeast  ridge  is  the  best  road  up  the  mountain. 
But  who  announced  to  the  world  that  the  North- 
east ridge  was  the  right  way?  Cook!  Nothing 
whatever  was  known  about  the  Northeast  ridge 
before  Cook's  ascent,  for  no  one  had  been  within 
many  miles  of  it.  And  who  first  affixed  to  this 
ridge  the  name  ''Northeast  ridge"?  Cook!  Which 
historic  fact  Archdeacon  Stuck  omits  to  mention 
when  he  says  that  it  was  the  Parker-Browne  party 
who  put  upon  this  ridge  the  designation  ''North- 
east."   But  how  could  Cook  have  guessed  that  the 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  105 

Northeast  ridge  was  the  right  way?  Turn  to  the 
history  of  the  Matterhorn.  It  was  tried  over  and 
over  again  by  Whymper,  by  Tyndall,  by  Gior- 
dano's party,  and  almost  always  by  the  Breuil 
arete,  which  looked  the  easy  way.  Finally  it  was 
conquered  at  the  first  shot  by  the  repellent-ap- 
pearing Zermatt  face.^  Or  turn  to  the  history  of 
the  Grande  Meije.  It  was  tried  many  times  on 
different  sides  by  leading  cUmbers  with  the  best 
Alpine  guides,  before  it  was  conquered  by  M.  de 
Castelnau  with  the  two  Gaspards  who  ascended 
by  a  route  ''So  forbidding  that  it  long  deterred 
everyone  from  trying."*^  The  mere  announcement 
that  the  Northeast  ridge  is  the  easiest  way  up 
Mount  McKinley,  is,  in  itself,  decided  proof  for 
Cook. 

How  utterly  impossible  it  was  for  anyone  to 
know  anything  about  the  Northeast  ridge  before 
Cook's  ascent  is  shown  also  thru  the  story  of  the 
Aiguille  d'Argentiere.  The  Sardinian  Ordnance 
Survey  prepared  a  map  of  the  Mont  Blanc  range 
and  marked  on  it  two  peaks,  the  Aiguille  d'Argen- 
tiere and  the  Pointe  des  Plines,  with  a  difference  of 
672  feet  in  altitude  at  a  distance  of  one  and  a  half 
miles  from  each  other.  It  was  not  till  1863  that 
Mr.  Adams  Reilly  discovered  that  these  supposed 

^Edward  Whymper:    Scrambles  Amongst  the  Alps,   1871, 
John  Tyndall :  Hours  of  Exercise  in  the  Alps,  1873. 
*'  The  Alpine  Journal,  Vd.  IX,  page  125. 


106  MOUNT  Mckinley 

peaks  were  one  and  the  same  peak,  mis-surveyed 
from  different  sides.  ^^  And  since  such  an  error 
was  possible  for  a  government  survey,  just  near  a 
center  like  Chamonix,  it  is  evident  that  no  indi- 
vidual traveler  in  the  Alaska  wilderness,  miles 
away  from  and  thousands  of  feet  below  the  North- 
east ridge,  could  have  told  about  the  steepness  of 
its  slopes  or  that  it  was  the  easiest  way  up  Mount 
McKinley.  To  find  out  it  had  to  be  reached  and 
Cook  was  the  man  who,  four  years  before  anyone 
else,  did  reach  it. 

Now  what  do  the  four  climbers  tell  us  of  the 
Northeast  ridge?  From  his  camp  at  12,000  feet 
Cook  thought  that  every  possible  line  of  ascent  in 
sight  was  swept  by  avalanches  except  the  North- 
east arete,  and  even  that  seemed  hopeless.  He 
tried  it  nevertheless  and  between  about  12,000  to 
14,000  feet  followed  this  snow  arete  ''with  a  sheer 
drop  of  about  4,000  feet  to  either  side."  Browne 
followed  Cook's  track  along  the  ar^te  so  closely, 
that  if  he  had  only  come  a  few  years  earlier,  he 
might  have  used  Cook's  footsteps.  In  saying  that 
the  ridge  was  so  sharp  that  he  had  to  chop  off  the 
crest,  and  that  on  the  left  it  dropped  for  5,000 
feet  at  a  dizzy  angle  and  that  on  the  right  it  fell 
almost  straight  for    2,000    feet,   Browne    corrobo- 

^^The  Alpine  Journal,  1863,  Vol.  I,  pages  257-274:  and 
1865,  Vol.  II,  pages  97-114.  Edward  Whymper:  Scrambles 
Amongst  the  Alps,  Chap.  XI. 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  107 

rates  Cook  almost  exactly.  That  Browne  spent  so 
many  days  on  this  ridge  is  simply  due  to  the  fact 
that  he  kept  running  up  and  down,  relaying  wagon- 
loads  of  impedimenta.  Stuck  found  the  Northeast 
ridge,  which  he  goes  so  far  as  to  say  is  perhaps  the 
only  route  up  the  mountain  and  in  which  state- 
ment he  is  almost  surely  in  error,  a  confused  jagged 
mass  of  rocks  and  ice.  And  it  was  the  step  cutting 
in  this  ice,  as  well  as  the  enormous  amount  of 
paraphernalia  he  was  burdened  with,  which  caused 
Stuck  to  spend  so  much  time  on  the  Northeast 
ridge. 

Lloyd's  narrative,  unfortunately,  is  so  confused 
that  it  is,  especially  about  the  Northeast  ridge,  of 
almost  no  use  for  purposes  of  comparison.  As  an 
instance  of  the  perplexing  nature  of  Lloyd's  ac- 
count, let  us  take  Tunnel  Camp.  Where  was 
Tunnel  Camp?  Was  it  at  the  bottom  or  the  top 
of  the  Northeast  ridge?  There's  the  rub!  Lloyd 
says  that  they  took  "a,  jag  of  freight"  with  the  help 
of  their  dogs  almost  up  to  Tunnel  Camp.  But 
they  could  scarcely  have  taken  a  dog  team  up  the 
Northeast  ridge,  even  tho  Dr.  W.  A.  B.  Coolidge's 
dog  Tschingel  did  cUmb  many  a  big  peak  in  the 
European  Alps.  It  seems  therefore  most  probable 
that  Tunnel  Camp  was  at  the  bottom  of  the  North- 
east ridge  at  about  12,000  feet. 

5.  Towards  the  top  of  the  Northeast  ridge,  at 
about  14,000  feet.  Cook  says  the  slope  was  nearly 


108  MOUNT  McKINLEY 

60°.  Browne  verifies  this  statement  by  his  asser- 
tion that  in  going  up  to  13,200  feet  he  measured 
one  slope  of  50°  with  a  clinometer  and  traversed 
slopes  of  60°  or  more,  which  he  did  not  dare  to 
stay  on  long  enough  to  measure.  Of  the  upper  por- 
tion of  the  Northeast  ridge,  Stuck  says  that,  tho  less 
broken  than  the  lower  portion,  it  was  terribly  steep. 
Browne  and  Stuck  thus  both  corroborate  and 
verify  Cook  absolutely,  and  verify  themselves  also, 
thru  one  of  those  details  which  the  first  man  cannot 
invent  but  must  observe,  and  which  the  following 
men  probably  do  not  think  of  inventing.  And 
when  we  consider  that  this  ridge  is  the  key  to  what 
is  probably  the  easiest  route  up  Mount  McKinley, 
and  that  Cook  was  the  man  who  found  this  route 
and  cHmbed  this  ridge,  it  would  be  but  just  to 
commemorate  Cook's  achievement  by  calling  this 
ridge  ''Cook  ridge." 

6.  Cook  rose  from  about  14,000  feet  to  16,300 
feet  in  one  day.  He  found  the  sharp  ar^te  die  out 
some  distance  beyond  his  14,000  foot  camp  and 
on  that  day  ''soon  after  noon,  we  swung  from  the 
ar^te  easterly  to  the  glacier."  So  this  must  have 
been  somewheres  about  15,000  feet.  At  about 
15,400  feet  Cook  photographed  a  rocky  ar^te  of 
great  rock  slabs.  Browne  speaks  of  the  knife- 
edged  ridge  up  to  14,400  feet  and  at  15,000  feet  he 
camped  under  some  great  granite  slabs.  Stuck  at 
about  15,000  feet  got  off  the  arete  on  to  the  Upper 


AND    MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  109 

McKinley  Glacier  and  came  straight  to  great  up- 
standing granite  slabs.  That  is  to  say,  between 
about  14,000  feet  and  15,400  feet  Cook,  Browne, 
and  Stuck  agree  perfectly  in  their  statements  about 
the  Northeast  ridge  and  about  the  great  granite 
rocks  near  the  top,  which  means  that  they  followed 
identically  the  same  track.  There  is  no  inven- 
tion possible  here  by  the  first  man.  The  later 
climbers  might  have  copied  their  predecessor:  but 
the  first  man  had  nothing  to  record  from  except 
his  observations.  This  is  proof  positive  of  Cook's 
veracity. 

7.  At  about  16,300  feet.  Cook  camped  on  the 
Upper  McKinley  Glacier  on  a  little  snow  field  in 
the  shape  of  an  amphitheatre  where  the  snow 
could  be  cut  into  blocks  for  a  snow  house.  Browne 
at  15,800  feet  and  16,615  feet  camped  on  precisely 
such  little  snow  fields  on  the  Upper  McKinley 
Glacier.  Stuck  camped  at  16,000  feet,  16,500 
feet,  17,500  feet  and  18,000  feet  on  the  snow  fields 
of  the  Upper  McKinley  Glacier.  Browne  and 
Stuck  again  verify  Cook. 

8.  Beyond  his  16,300  foot  camp.  Cook  was  sur- 
prised at  the  great  spread  of  surface.  From  the 
foothills  he  had  previously  noted  that  there  were 
two  peaks,  but  it  was  not  till  Cook  was  on  the 
Upper  McKinley  Glacier  that  he  discovered  several 
little  ranges  running  to  them.  Lloyd  mentions 
the    high    ridge    running    to    the    South    summit. 


110  MOUNT  McKINLEY 

Browne,  at  his  16,615  foot  camp,  speaks  of  the 
great  blue  ice  slopes  which,  to  the  north,  led  up  to 
the  granite  buttresses  of  the  North  Peak,  and  of 
the  frozen  snow  fields  which,  to  the  south,  swept 
gently  to  the  rock-dotted  sky-line  of  the  Northeast 
ridge  in  an  easy  grade  to  the  South  Peak.  Browne's 
and  Stuck's  photographs  show  the  great  spread  of 
surface.  But  where,  before  Cook  published  his 
narrative,  can  one  find  any  account  of  this  broad 
vast  snow  field  hemmed  in  by  two  ridges  leading 
respectively  to  the  Southern  and  Northern  sum- 
mits? And  the  answer  is  that  you  cannot  find  any 
description  of  the  kind,  for  no  one  knew  of  this 
snow  field  and  of  these  ridges  before  Cook,  They 
were  Cook's  discovery  and  he  was  the  first  to  tell 
the  world  of  them. 

9.  Cook  says  that  beyond  16,300  feet  the  climb- 
ing was  ridiculously  easy.  Browne  speaks  of  the 
final  grades  of  the  summit  rising  ''as  innocently  as 
a  tilted  snow-covered  tennis-court."  Stuck  says 
that  with  the  exception  of  the  Northeast  ridge, 
Mount  McKinley  presents  no  "special  mountain- 
eering difficulties  of  a  technical  kind":  the  Upper 
McKinley  Glacier  in  fact  was  merely  a  long  snow 
grind.  Here  is  another  point  which  Cook  was  the 
first  to  announce  to  the  world:  there  was  nothing 
known  about  the  mountaineering  points  of  the 
ascent,  of  its  easy  spots  nor  of  its  difficulties, 
before  Cook  published  his  account. 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  Ill 

10.  Beyond  16,000  feet  all  four  parties  complain 
of  the  rarefied  air.  On  rising  towards  17,000  feet 
and  beyond  Cook  had  to  stop  every  hundred  steps 
and  puff;  on  rising  towards  19,000  feet  he  had  to 
stop  every  twenty  steps  and  puff:  his  legs  were  of 
wood  and  his  feet  of  stone.  Lloyd's  party  all  had 
to  breathe  thru  their  opened  mouths:  they  could 
not  get  enough  air  thru  their  nostrils.  Browne 
beyond  16,000  feet  suffered  all  the  time  from  short- 
ness of  breath.  His  party  changed  leaders  every 
half  hour.  Altho  they  moved  quietly  and  steadily 
and  seemed  to  make  good  time,  they  rose  only  400 
feet  an  hour.  At  15,000  feet  Stuck  says  the  alti- 
tude was  not  so  high  as  to  induce  the  acute  breath- 
lessness  from  which  he  suffered  higher  up  upon 
any  exertion.  But  Stuck,  as  he  clambered  up  the 
Upper  McKinley  Glacier,  became  more  and  more 
affected  by  the  altitude  and  had  to  be  hauled  up 
to  the  summit,  where  he  feU  unconscious  for  a 
moment.  The  other  members  of  Stuck's  party 
were  not  much  affected  by  the  thinner  ozone. 
Nevertheless,  as  a  consensus  of  experience,  it  is 
apparent  that  the  effects  of  the  rarefied  air  are 
unusually  severe  on  Mount  McKinley:  certainly 
much  more  so  than  at  similar  altitudes  in  the 
Himalaya.  There  is  probably  a  cause  for  this,  and 
it  may  be  due  to  the  intense  cold  weakening  the 
powers  of  resistance  of  the  climbers.  And  that 
the  atmosphere  of  the  higher  easy  slopes  of  Mount 


112  MOUNT  McKINLEY 

McKinley  is  so  unusually  deadly  to   a  climber's 
lungs  was  first  announced  to  the  world  by  Cook. 

11.  Cook,  Browne,  and  Stuck  all  complain  of 
the  cold,  which  was  polar  in  its  severity.  It  has 
been  noticed  on  other  ascents,  in  the  Himalaya  for 
instance,  that  cold  is  more  felt  on  a  high  mountain 
than  it  is  at  lower  altitudes,  so  it  is  not  surprising 
this  should  be  the  case  also  on  Mount  McKinley. 

12.  On  leaving  his  18,400  foot  camp,  Cook  noted 
'Hhe  ice-blink  caused  by  the  extensive  glacial 
sheets  north  of  the  St.  Elias  group."  Here  speaks 
the  experienced  polar  traveler;  the  observer  who 
had  spent  a  winter  in  Greenland,  and  a  winter  in 
West  Antarctica.  His  trained  eye  instinctively 
spotted  the  ice-blink  due  to  the  huge  glaciated 
area  extending  on  and  round  Mounts  Wrangell, 
Blackburn,  Logan,  Saint  Elias  and  others,  an  area 
beginning  at  a  distance  of  less  than  200  miles 
from  Mount  McKinley.  And  the  ice-blink  over  this 
tremendous  snowy  range  would  be  easily  visible  at 
200  miles  to  an  observer  at  18,400  feet  on  Mount 
McKinley.  Ice-blinks  and  land-blinks  have  been 
seen  at  immense  distances.  Lieutenant  Commander 
Ringgold,  from  the  deck  of  his  ship,  saw  the  ''loom 
usual  over  high  land"  over  the  Balleny  Islands,  East 
Antarctica,  from  a  distance  of  about  100  miles  ;^^ 
and  Sir  James  Clark  Ross,  from  the  deck  of  his 

^^ Narrative  of  the  United  States  Exploring  Expedition,  Vol. 
II,  page  469.    Edwin  Swift  Balch:  Antarctica,  pages  142,  171. 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  113 

ship,  saw  the  ice-blink  over  South  Victoria  Land, 
East  Antarctica,  at  a  distance  of  at  least  150 
miles.**  If  Ringgold  and  Ross  had  been  standing  at 
18,400  feet,  instead  of  at  sea  level,  they  could  have 
seen  the  land-blink  or  ice-bhnk  easily  at  200  miles. 
This  observation  of  Cook's  of  the  ice-blink  is 
one  of  those  apparently  trivial  details  which  no 
man  would  think  of  inventing,  and  which  there- 
fore carries  conviction.  It  does  so  all  the  more, 
because,  in  the  whole  of  Alpine  literature,  there  is, 
perhaps,  no  other  recorded  instance  of  seeing  from 
one  range  of  mountains  the  ice-blink  over  another 
range  of  mountains.  One  reason  is  that  there  are 
few  mountain  ranges  outside  of  the  Polar  regions 
where  the  glaciation  is  sufficiently  extensive  to 
produce  the  ice-blink.  Another  reason  is  that  few 
mountaineers  have  been  also  polar  travelers  and 
therefore  if  there  were  an  ice-blink  few  mountain- 
eers would  notice  it.  From  both  these  causes. 
Cook's  observation  is  almost  solitary,  if  indeed  it 
is  not  unique,  in  the  annals  of  mountaineering,  and 
its  extreme  rarity  is  excellent  proof  of  its  genuine- 
ness. There  is,  perhaps,  no  single  circumstance  in 
Cook's  entire  narrative  which  proves  more  con- 
clusively that  Cook  ascended  Mount  McKinley 
than  his  observation  of  the  ice-blink  over  Mounts 
Wrangell  and  Blackburn. 

^Voyage  of  Discovery  and  Research  in  the  Southern  and 
Antarctic  Regions,  1847,  Vol.  I,  page  183. 


114  MOUNT  McKINLEY 

13.  Lloyd  claims  to  have  ascended,  on  two  con- 
secutive days,  first  the  South  summit,  then  the 
North  summit  of  Mount  McKinley.  On  both 
days  he  started  from  Tunnel  Camp,  and  he  had 
cut  beforehand  steps  well  beyond  Tunnel  Camp, 
probably  up  the  Northeast  ridge  to  the  Upper  Mc- 
Kinley Glacier.  If  Tunnel  Camp  was  at  an  alti- 
tude of  about  12,000  feet,  to  cHmb  Mount  Mc- 
Kinley in  one  day  meant  ascending  8,000  feet  and 
down  again  thru  the  rarefied  air  of  the  coldest  of 
summits.  But  fortunately  for  the  Lloyd  party, 
they  left  a  flag  pole  on  the  North  Peak.  And 
since  they  did  one  peak  it  is  idle  to  deny  that  they 
did  the  other.  The  mountaineering  difficulties  were 
the  same  in  both  cases,  the  steps  were  ready  cut, 
and  the  only  question  would  be  whether  any  human 
beings  could  have  sufficient  endurance  to  repeat 
such  an  ascent  twice  running?  And  the  answer  is 
that  they  might  have  such  endurance.  Swiss  guides 
have  certainly  gone  up  a  big  peak  one  day,  and 
another  one  the  next  day;  and  I  believe  some- 
times a  third  one  the  third  day.  Tremendous  feat 
it  was  to  climb  Mount  McKinley  from  12,000  feet 
to  the  top  in  one  day.  Nevertheless  if  it  was  done, 
and  there  seems  every  reason  to  think  it  was,  then 
there  are  plenty  of  examples,  among  the  Carrels 
and  the  Maquignaz'  and  the  Aimers  and  the 
Burgeners,  to  prove  that  it  was  possible  to  do 
it  again  on  the  morrow.     But  as  a  feat  of  endur- 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  115 

ance  this  one  of  the  Lloyd  party  has  never  been 
surpassed. 

According  to  Browne's  own  statements,  his  party 
did  not  reach  the  summit  of  Mount  McKinley. 
On  their  first  attempt,  at  about  19,000  feet,  they 
were  struck  by  a  blizzard  and,  altho  they  climbed 
up  to  beyond  20,000  feet,  they  did  not  see  anything 
of  the  summit  which  was  then  close  at  hand.  On 
their  second  attempt  they  reached  19,300  feet,  and 
again  were  struck  by  a  blizzard,  which  of  course 
prevented  them  from  seeing  anything  of  the  sum- 
mit from  nearer  than  1000  feet  distance,  Browne 
also  publishes  two  photographs,  looking  towards 
the  summit  of  the  upper  snow  fields  and  taken 
respectively  from  altitudes  of  18,600  and  19,000 
feet.  The  apparent  summit  in  both  pictures  seems 
to  be  entirely  snow  covered,  but  this  was  at  the 
end  of  June.  In  the  beginning  of  September,  the 
summit  might  look  quite  different. 

Browne's  party,  therefore,  not  only  never  saw 
the  summit  of  Mount  McKinley  nearby,  but  on 
account  of  blizzards,  their  nearest  viewpoint  of  the 
summit  was  from  more  than  1,000  feet  below  it. 
Now  at  1,000  feet  below  the  summit  of  a  mountain, 
no  one  can  teU  what  that  summit  does  look  like. 
Every  mountaineer  knows,  even  if  he  may  not 
wish  to  say  so,  that  it  is  impossible  to  guess  exactly 
what  the  last  few  feet  of  a  mountain  looks  like 
until  one  gets  there.     These  assertions  can  be  easily 


116  MOUNT  McKINLEY 

verified  by  anyone  who  will  go,  for  instance,  to 
Bar  Harbor,  Maine,  where,  a  couple  of  miles  from 
the  steamboat  landing,  rises  Newport  Mountain, 
1,060  feet  in  height.  Go  all  round  Newport  Moun- 
tain and  from  nowhere,  except  from  the  higher 
summits  of  Drye  and  Green,  can  you  form  any 
conception  of  what  the  top  of  Newport  Mountain 
looks  like,  until  you  get  to  the  top.  It  is  evident 
that  since  Messrs.  Browne  and  Parker  did  not 
reach  the  top  of  Mount  McKinley  and  did  not  see 
it  nearby,  they  do  not  know  and  cannot  say  what 
it  does  look  like. 

Archdeacon  Stuck  describes  what  the  summit  of 
Mount  McKinley  looked  like  when  he  was  on  it 
and  he  gives  a  photograph  of  it.  The  photograph 
agrees  fairly  well  with  the  description,  but  it  is  so 
poor,  apparently  from  an  unfortunate  double  ex- 
posure, that  it  might  be  a  photograph  of  almost 
any  snowy  mountain  top.  Nevertheless  it  has 
certain  characteristics  of  its  own,  and  these  agree 
closely  with  the  characteristics  of  Cook's  photo- 
graph of  the  top  of  Mount  McKinley,  considering 
that  one  represents  a  snow  top  and  the  other  a  rock 
top. 

Stuck's  description  of  the  summit  of  Mount 
McKinley  "&  little  crater-like  snow  basin,  sixty  or 
sixty-five  feet  long  and  twenty  or  twenty-five  feet 
wide,  with  a  haycock  of  snow  at  either  end"  pre- 
sents one  unique  particular,  and  that  is  the  ''little 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS.  117 

crater-like  snow  basin."  As  far  as  I  know,  such 
an  occurrence  has  never  been  reported  before  of 
any  mountain  top  which  rises  above  the  snow  hne, 
unless  of  some  volcano  where  the  fires  are  not  en- 
tirely extinct  and  where  subterranean  steam  melts 
the  snow,  as  it  does  on  top  of  Mount  Tacoma.  A 
small  crater-like  snow-basin  on  ordinary  mountain 
tops  would  inevitably  soon  fill  up  with  snow  and 
be  a  basin  no  longer. 

Now  this  little  sixty  by  twenty  foot  crater-like 
snow-basin  ending  in  two  snow  haycocks  was  not 
built  on  vacuity.  It  must  have  had  some  kind  of 
a  rock  foundation.  And  this  foundation  must  be 
a  short  rock  arete,  with  probably  a  knob  of  rock 
at  each  end. 

If  now  one  looks  at  Cook's  photograph  of  the 
top  of  Mount  McKinley  it  will  be  seen  that  behind 
the  flagman  is  a  little  knob  of  rock.  It  is  nearly 
as  high  as  the  flagman,  and  it  is  also  beyond  the 
flagman,  perhaps  some  fifty  or  sixty  feet  away. 
It  seems,  therefore,  almost  certain  that  the  top  is 
a  short  arete,  possibly  somewhat  slanting,  rising 
at  each  end  into  a  rock  knob,  of  which  the  one 
where  the  flagman  is  standing  is  the  highest.  And 
on  such  an  arete  snow  might  well  pile  up,  as  Stuck 
reports,  with  a  haycock  of  snow  at  either  end.  The 
angles  of  the  snow  top  where  the  men  appear  ghost- 
like in  Stuck's  photograph  also  correspond  closely 
with  the  angles  of  the  rock  top  where  the  flagman 


118  MOUNT  Mckinley 

is  standing  in  Cook's  photograph.  In  fact  the 
rock  formation  in  Cook's  photograph  seems  just 
about  the  proper  foundation  for  the  snow  formation 
in  Stuck's  photograph. 

Stuck's  own  words  about  the  top  'booking  as  if 
every  violent  storm  might  somewhat  change  its 
form"  moreover  are  of  great  import,  in  showing 
that  Stuck  himself  recognizes  that  the  top  of  Mount 
McKinley  changes  rapidly.  It  is  first  of  all  possi- 
ble altho  not  probable  that,  since  Cook's  ascent, 
the  rock  top  itself  was  changed  in  its  configuration 
by  the  great  earthquake:  but  this  is  one  of  those 
points  which  is  beyond  argument,  for  it  can  neither 
be  proved  nor  disproved.  Now  not  only  may,  as 
Stuck  himself  points  out,  storms  change  the  top 
of  Mount  McKinley,  but  they  undoubtedly  do. 
The  season  of  the  year  and  avalanches  likewise 
surely  bring  about  changes  at  the  immediate  sum- 
mit. The  rock  top  in  Cook's  photograph  is  cer- 
tainly steep  enough  for  piled  up  masses  of  winter 
snow  to  slide  off  it  thru  the  force  of  gravity  and  to 
go  careering  down  hill. 

14.  Lloyd  tells  us  that  on  the  Southern  summit 
he  "couldn't  find  any  rocks  or  any  formation  in 
which  the  flagpole  could  be  placed  permanently." 
Later  on  in  his  narrative,  Lloyd  says  *'If  Dr.  Cook 
had  made  the  summit  *  *  *  he  could  not 
have  escaped  seeing  samples  of  the  rock  on  that 
summit  and  near  it."     What  is  one  to  infer  from 


AND   MOUNTAIN   CLIMBERS'   PROOFS.  119 

this?  Apparently  Lloyd,  a  miner,  noticed  some 
rocks  near  the  summit,  which  seem  to  have 
attracted  him,  possibly  because  they  suggested 
''pay-dirt"  to  him.  Cook  was  not  looking  for 
"pay-dirt"  and  doubtless  would  not  know  it  if  he 
saw  it.  But  Lloyd's  statement  corroborates  Cook 
in  that  it  shows  Lloyd  saw  some  rocks  near  the 
summit. 

Archdeacon  Stuck  states  positively  that  there  is 
no  rock  of  any  kind  above  19,000  feet  on  the 
South  Peak  and  that  everything  is  permanent  ice 
and  snow.  Now  there  is  no  such  thing  as  per- 
manent snow  and  ice  on  a  mountain  peak.  The 
snow  and  ice,  whether  in  solid  form  or  in  melted 
form  as  water,  are  obeying  the  law  of  gravity  and 
sliding  down  hill  all  the  time,  and  their  place  is 
filled  by  fresh  precipitation  from  the  heavens 
above.  About  rocks,  Stuck's  photographs  do  not 
agree  with  his  words.  His  photograph  of  the 
North  Peak  shows  plenty  of  rock  in  June:  why 
should  there  not  be  some  visible  on  the  South 
Peak  in  September?  And  still  more  important  is 
his  photograph  entitled  ''Denali's  Wife  from  the 
summit  of  Denali."^  There,  as  was  first  noticed 
by  Mr.  E.  C.  Rost,  of  Chicago,  in  the  immediate 
foreground,  is  an  outcrop  of  rocks.  They  can 
scarcely  be  more  than  two  or  three  hundred  feet 
from   were    the    camera  was    placed.     Since   that 

^^  The  Ascent,  page  102. 


120  MOUNT  Mckinley 

photograph  was  taken  on  top  of  the  South  Peak 
of  Mount  McKinley,  it  proves  that,  even  in  June, 
some  rocks  are  exposed  nearly  up  to  the  top  of 
the  South  Peak. 

15.  The  only  relic  of  any  of  the  expeditions  seen 
so  far  by  a  later  expedition  is  the  pole  which  Lloyd 
erected  on  the  North  Peak  and  which  Stuck  re- 
ported seeing  three  years  later,  and  it  is  certainly 
lucky  for  Lloyd  that  he  did  plant  this  pole,  for 
otherwise  his  ascent  of  the  North  Peak  would  be 
denied  just  as  his  ascent  of  the  South  Peak  is  de- 
nied. Cook  unfortunately  had  no  such  pole  to  set 
up  as  a  memorial  of  his  success  and  the  small 
metallic  tube  he  says  he  left  on  top  must  have  been 
covered  with  snow  when  Lloyd  and  Stuck  reached 
the  summit.  Stuck  could  not  find  the  relics  which 
Browne  says  he  left  somewheres  near  19,000  feet. 
But  even  if  Browne's  relics  or  those  which  Stuck 
says  he  left  at  about  18,000  feet  and  at  about 
15,000  feet  are  found  hereafter,  proof  will  only  be 
given  that  these  climbers  reached  19,000  feet  or 
18,000  feet  or  15,000  feet  respectively.  The  relics 
left  by  the  various  climbers,  therefore,  with  the 
exception  of  Lloyd's  pole,  are  of  but  little  use  as 
proofs  of  the  ascents. 

16.  From  the  top  of  Mount  McKinley,  Cook  had 
a  good  view  of  some  sections  of  the  surrounding 
country.  Much  of  it  was  hidden  by  clouds  drawn 
out  in  long  strings  and  by  big  cumulus  clouds, 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  121 

which  screened  the  lowlands  and  which  were  en- 
twined round  the  lesser  peaks.  To  the  south 
Cook  had  an  unobstructed  distant  view,  looking 
over  nearby  clouds,  which  therefore  lay  exactly 
over  Mount  Foraker.  Lloyd  states  that  on  both 
days  when  he  was  on  the  summits  of  Mount  Mc- 
Kinley,  it  was  bright  and  clear  at  the  top,  but  that 
fogs  and  clouds  obscured  the  view  below.  Mount 
Foraker,  thus,  was  hidden  by  clouds  from  Lloyd 
as  it  was  from  Cook.  Stuck  had  an  exceptionally 
clear  view  of  the  nearer  surroundings  of  Mount 
McKinley.  He  seems  to  have  been  especially 
impressed  with  the  appearance  of  Mount  Foraker 
and  thinks  every  climber  of  Mount  McKinley 
would  mention  the  sudden  splendid  sight  of  this 
great  mountain.  And  the  fact  that  Cook  does 
not  do  so,  is  one  of  the  arguments  Stuck  advances 
to  show  Cook  did  not  climb  Mount  McKinley. 
That  Lloyd  also  does  not  speak  of  Mount  Foraker 
is  simply  passed  over  by  Stuck  in  silence.  But 
how  could  Cook  or  Lloyd  have  spoken  of  seeing 
Mount  Foraker  since,  from  their  accounts,  it  is 
evident  that,  when  they  were  on  top  of  Mount  Mc- 
Kinley, Mount  Foraker  was,  at  any  rate  to  some 
extent,  veiled  by  clouds? 

17.  A  remarkable  proof  of  the  success  of  Cook 
and  of  the  success  of  Stuck  are  their  observations 
about  the  sky  at  the  top.  Cook,  at  ten  o'clock  in 
the  morning,  writes  ''that  the  sky  was  as  black  as 


122  MOUNT  Mckinley 

that  of  midnight,"  and  later  ''of  the  curious  low 
dark  sky"  and  ''the  neutral  gray  blue  of  space." 
Stuck  in  turn  writes:  "We  first  noticed  the  dark- 
ening tint  of  the  sky  in  the  Grand  Basin,  and  it 
deepened  as  we  rose."  "It  was  a  deep,  rich, 
lustrous,  transparent  blue,  as  dark  as  a  Prussian 
blue,  but  intensely  blue."  Here  is  one  of  those 
details  which  a  man  does  not  invent:  he  either 
observes,  or  he  remembers  something  he  has  read. 
Knowledge  of  this  phenomenon,  however,  is  rare, 
for,  as  Stuck  remarks,  such  a  dark  blue-black  sky 
has  almost  never  been  mentioned  in  print.  Almost 
the  only  notice  I  can  remember  about  the  dark 
skies  of  high  altitudes  is  one  by  Mr.  Charles 
Packe,^  about  the  Sierra  Nevada  in  Spain:  "The 
sky,  too,  on  looking  overhead,  seemed  to  maintain 
its  usual  pale  blue  tint.  Neither  on  this,  or  on  any 
other  of  our  ascents,  did  I  once  observe  that  deep 
black  indigo  which  almost  always  prevails  in  the 
Alps  and  Pyrenees  at  heights  exceeding  10,000  feet." 
It  may  indeed  be  questioned  whether  such  a 
dark  sky  is  a  constant  phenomenon  on  high  peaks. 
That  Cook  speaks  of  it  as  black  or  neutral  gray 
blue,  and  Stuck  as  blue  may  be  due  to  the  color 
of  the  glasses  the  two  observers  wore:  Cook's  were 
probably  the  usual  smoke  color:  Stuck's  were 
amber  color.  ^^    Unquestionably,  moreover,  the  dark 

^The  Alpine  Journal,  1868,  Vol.  IV,  page  119. 
*^  The  Ascent,  page  37. 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  123 

glasses  lead  the  observer  to  think  the  sky  is  darker 
than  he  would  see  it  without  glasses.  In  regard 
to  the  color  also — black  or  neutral  gray  blue  with 
Cook,  Prussian  blue  with  Stuck,  black  indigo  with 
Packe — my  own  memories  of  high  peaks  would 
lead  me  to  call  the  darker  skies  above  snowy 
Alps,  as  I  should  also  designate  the  shadows  on 
distant  snowy  peaks,  French  ultramarine,  that  is  a 
purple  blue,  which  lightens  up  if  the  glasses  are 
removed. 

The  illustration  of  the  top  of  Mount  McKihley 
in  Cook's  article  in  Harper's  Monthly  Magazine 
for  May,  1907,  does  not  present  the  dark  sky.  It 
seems  to  be  a  drawing  in  black  and  white,  possibly 
made  over  a  photograph.  The  sky  is  a  blank 
white,  and  the  rocks  have  no  character.  Doubtless 
the  original  photograph  was  considered  too  rough 
for  a  popular  magazine,  and  so  the  genuine  article 
was  thrown  aside,  and  a  popular  substitute  pre- 
sented. 

Fortunately,  in  To  the  Top  of  the  Continent, 
Cook's  original  photograph  of  the  top  of  Mount 
McKinley  was  published  just  as  it  was,  with  all 
its  supposed  imperfections  and  no  magazine  im- 
provements. And  it  is  a  detail  of  great  importance 
in  this  matter.  The  sky  in  the  photograph  is 
very  dark:  the  camera  noted  it.  Blue,  moreover, 
is  a  color  which  photographs  paler  in  value  than 
other    colors.     For    some    chemical    reason,    in    a 


124  MOUNT  McKINLEY 

photograph,  blue  reproduces  lighter  than  its  true 
depth  or  value  as  a  painter  would  say.  Orange,  on 
the  contrary,  photographs  darker  than  its  real 
value.  Cook's  photograph,  therefore,  proves  that 
Cook  did  not  manufacture  his  description  from 
knowledge  acquired  from  books:  the  sky  in  the 
photograph  proves  the  photograph  was  taken  at 
the  top.  Stuck's  observation  of  the  dark  sky  also 
proves  Cook's  veracity,  and  there  is  perhaps  no  one 
statement  of  Stuck  which  proves  his  own  ascent 
as  completely  as  his  observation  of  the  dark  sky 
at  the  top:  but  it  is  passing  strange  that  the  best 
comparative  proof  of  Stuck's  ascent  is  presented 
by  Cook. 

18.  The  descent  of  Mount  McKinley  was  made 
with  great  rapidity  by  Cook  and  Lloyd;  much 
more  slowly  by  Browne  and  Stuck.  Browne  was 
still  overweighted  by  baggage  on  his  descent;  and 
Stuck's  pace  was  handicapped  by  the  shattered 
condition  of  the  Northeast  ridge.  The  statements 
of  the  four  climbers  about  the  times  taken  in  their 
descents  tally  perfectly  with  the  conditions  they 
report. 

19.  The  great  earthquake  which  shook  Mount 
McKinley  in  its  very  bowels  and  which  Browne 
describes  so  vividly  makes  it  evident  why  Stuck 
found  the  Northeast  ridge  so  different  from  Cook 
and  Browne.  How  much  the  earthquake  affected 
other  parts  of  the  mountain  Stuck  does  not  say, 


AND   MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  125 

but  it  may  easily  have  changed  more  than  one 
piece  of  its  configuration,  and  for  aught  we  know, 
it  may  have  altered  the  top  of  the  Southern  summit 
entirely  since  Cook's  and  Lloyd's  visits. 


MOUNT  Mckinley  and  mountain  climbers'  proofs.    127 


V. 

CONCLUSIONS. 

The  conclusions  which  comparisons  of  the  state- 
ments, denials  and  observations  of  the  four  claim- 
ants to  ascents  of  Mount  McKinley  seem  to  war- 
rant, may  now  be  summed  up  in  a  brief  resume. 

The  denials  made  in  turn  by  each  of  the  last 
three  climbers  about  his  predecessors,  amount  to 
very  little.  For  none  of  these  three  men  really 
acts  the  part  of  a  critic.  Lloyd  attacks  Cook  about 
places  where  Cook  never  went.  Browne  omits  the 
facts  about  Cook  and  has  nothing  to  say  of  Cook's 
ascent  beyond  12,000  feet;  he  barely  notices  Lloyd 
and  only  to  say  he  did  not  see  Lloyd's  flagpole. 
Stuck  says  of  Cook  that  Mount  McKinley  cannot 
be  ascended  from  the  south  and  he  flatly  denies 
Lloyd's  achievement  of  the  highest  peak.  But 
one  can  not  thus  criticize  mountain  ascents.  One 
can  not  omit  the  facts.  One  can  not  destroy 
everything  connected  with  an  ascent  by  the  naive 
expedient  of  not  mentioning  it.  A  mountain  his- 
torian, in  order  to  judge  of  an  ascent,  must  examine 
into  its  details,  and  this  the  later  climbers  of  Mount 
McKinley  either  do  not  do  at  all  or  barely  do 
about  the  ascents  of  their  predecessors. 

There  are  three  claimants  to  the  absolute  top 
and  one  to  the  almost  absolute  top  of  Mount  Mc- 


128  MOUNT   McKINLEY 

Kinley.  One  party  approached  the  mountain  from 
the  northeast;  the  other  three  from  the  northwest. 
At  a  point  between  about  11,500  feet  and  12,000 
feet,  the  routes  of  the  four  parties  met,  and  from 
there  to  the  top,  their  routes  appear  to  be  iden- 
tical. 

Each  claimant  pubhshed  a  narrative  of  his  ex- 
periences. Cook's  account  was  pubhshed  in  1907, 
three  years  before  Lloyd's  account,  pubhshed  in 
1910.  This  again  antedates  by  two  years  Browne's 
account,  which  itself  comes  one  year  earlier  than 
Stuck's  account.  The  priority  of  publication  of 
the  description  of  the  northern  route  up  Mount 
McKinley  from  12,000  feet  to  the  top,  therefore, 
belongs  to  Cook.  And  this  priority  of  publication 
is  evidence  of  insuperable  importance  in  regard  to 
the  first  ascent  of  Mount  McKinley. 

The  four  narratives  are  not  absolutely  similar; 
each  one  is  tinged  with  the  individuality  of  its 
author.  None  of  the  narrators  noted  identically 
the  same  facts  thruout.  But  in  the  main  each 
narrator  described,  as  best  he  could,  the  same 
things.  All  four  narrators  report,  each  in  his  own 
personal  manner,  their  nearly  similar  feelings  about 
their  fight  against  the  cold  and  the  rarefied  air. 
Cook,  Browne  and  Stuck  describe  clearly,  between 
the  meeting  place  of  their  routes  up  to  about 
15,000  feet,  their  dangerous  climb  up  the  same 
knife-edged    ar^te   with,   at  places,   slopes  of  60°. 


AND    MOUNTAIN    CLIMBERS'    PROOFS.  129 

Just  beyond  15,000  feet,  Cook,  Browne  and  Stuck 
all  turned  to  the  Upper  McKinley  Glacier,  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  same  great  granite  rock  slabs. 
All  four  climbers  describe  fully  the  Upper  Mc- 
Kinley Glacier  and  its  vast  snow  fields,  the  rocky 
ranges  leading  to  the  twin  summits,  and  the  easy 
slopes  on  which  there  are  no  mountaineering  diffi- 
culties and  which  continue  between  the  boundary 
ranges  to  both  summits  of  the  mountain.  Cook, 
the  Arctic  and  Antarctic  explorer,  reports  the  ice- 
blink over  the  Saint  Elias  group.  Cook  and  Stuck 
both  report  the  so  seldom  noticed  dark  sky  at  the 
top.  The  coincidences  of  detail  thruout  the  four 
narratives  are  numerous;  too  numerous  and  too 
evidently  genuine  to  be  fabrications. 

In  the  nature  of  things,  some  mountain  historians 
are  bound  to  take  up  at  some  future  time  these 
ascents  of  Mount  McKinley  and  to  investigate 
them  anew.  And  they  may  be  relied  on  to  do 
so  in  the  same  spirit  which  mountain  historians 
have  always  acted  on  so  far,  namely  to  see 
that  the  first  shall  be  first  and  the  last  shall 
be  last,  and  to  base  their  judgment,  not  on 
the  vaporizings  of  the  later  climbers  of  the 
mountain,  but  on  the  facts.  And  the  facts 
seem  to  be,  that  the  four  climbers  who  say  they 
have  been  on  or  nearly  on  the  top  of  Mount 
McKinley  told  the  truth,  as  well  as  they  knew 
how,  about  their  experiences.     That  Cook,  Lloyd, 


130  MOUNT  McKINLEY. 

Browne  and  Stuck,  reporting  as  they  do,  tho  in 
different  words,  much  the  same  facts  and  much 
the  same  experiences,  corroborate  one  another. 
And  therefore  the  final  verdict  will  surely  be  that 
Cook  made  the  first  ascent  of  Mount  McKinley; 
Lloyd  the  second  ascent  of  the  South  Peak  and 
the  first  ascent  of  the  North  Peak;  Browne  an 
almost  complete  ascent  of  the  highest  summit; 
and  Stuck  the  third  ascent  of  the  South  Peak, 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

Abruzzi,  The  Duke  of  the 13, 88 

African  snowy  ranges,  The 8 

Aiguille  d'Argenti^re,  History  of  the 105 

Alaska 10, 19, 31, 106 

Alaska,  Denials  by  inhabitants  of 66, 72 

Alaska  Range,  The 37 

Aimer .' 114 

Alpine  Clubs 7 

Alpine  color  effects ' 67, 68 

Alpine  Journal,  The 11,  69, 91 

Alps,  The 122 

Anderegg,  Jakob 18, 19 

Anderson,  Pete 36, 40,  46, 54 

Andes,  The 8, 10 

Anglo-Indian  travelers  as  critics 13 

Antarctic,  The 100 

Antarctic  Circle,  The 100 

Antarctica 31 

Anthamatten,  Alois , 11, 12 

Arctic,  The 100 

"Ascents  near  Saas" 11, 12 

Baby  Denial 76 

Balch,  E.  S.,  Letter  in  The  Sun  to  Archdeacon  Stuck 87, 88 

Balleny  Islands,  The 112 

Balmat,  Jacques 16, 17, 18 

Barille,  Mr.  Edward 36, 38, 71,  72, 76 

Barille,  Denial  by  Edward 72 

Bar  Harbor,  Maine 116 

Base  Camp 37 

Bates,  Mr.  R.  C,  makes  unsuccessful  attempt  to  ascend  Mount 

McKinley 33 

Bossons,  Glacier  des 24 

Bourrit,  Mr.  Marc  Theodore 16, 17, 18 

Bradley  Land 65, 75 

Braided  rocks 78 

Bride's  Peak 13 

Brooks,  Mr.  Alfred  H 32 

Brooksbank,  Mr.  Thomas 14, 15 

Browne,  Mr,  Belmore passim 

(131) 


132  INDEX. 

PAGE 

Browne  and  Parker  beaten  by  blizzards 97 

Browne    and   Parker's   nearest   viewpoint   of   summit   of    Mount 

McKinley  at  19,300  feet,  and  therefore,  they  do  not  know  what 

summit  looks  like 115, 116 

Browne,  Art  work  of  Mr 82,  83,  84 

Browne  barely  notices  Lloyd's  ascent  of  Mount  McKinley 85,86 

Browne,  Denials  of  Dr.  Cook  by  Mr 67,  75, 76, 84, 85 

Browne,  Denials  of  Mr.  Lloyd  by  Mr 67, 85, 86 

Browne  ignores  everything  connected  with  Cook's  ascent  of  Mount 

McKinley  from  Ruth  Glacier  to  the  top 84, 85 

Browne  made  almost  complete  ascent  of  South  Peak 130 

Browne  nearly  reaches  summit  of  South  Peak 53, 96, 115 

Browne  travels  "heavy" 103 

Browne's  illustration  of  Fake  Peak  and  Cook's  photograph  of  Mount 

McKinley  compared 76-81 

Browne's  narrative 101 

Bulshaia  Gora  or  Big  Mountain 31 

Burgener,  Franz 11, 12, 15, 114 

Calotte,  The 24 

Camps  on  Northeast  ridge 37, 38, 39,  40, 44, 107, 108 

Camps  on  Upper  McKinley  Glacier 44,  45,  46, 47, 109 

Carrel 114 

Castelnau,  Mr.  de 105 

Caucasus,  The 8, 10 

Causes  sometimes  discrediting  climbers 10 

Chamonix 16, 17, 23, 24, 106 

Chulitna  River,  The 36, 75 

Claimants  to  ascents  of  Mount  McKinley 33,  34 

Col  Camp 39 

Cold  on  Mount  McKinley,  Intense 50,  51, 112 

Color  of  skies  above  high  peaks 121, 122, 123 

Comparative  method  must  be  resorted  to  to  judge  claims  of  climbers 

of  Mount  McKinley 34,  35 

Comparative  method  of  judging  mountain  ascents 25-29 

Comparisons 99-125 

Conclusions 127-130 

Conclusions  about  ascents  of  Mount  McKinley 129, 130 

Conclusions  about  denials  of  ascents  of  Mount  McKinley 127 

Cook,  Dr.  Frederick  A passim 

Cook  affixes  name  to  Northeast  ridge 104 

Cook  discovers  great  spread  of  surface  of  Upper  McKinley  Glacier, 

46,47,109,110 

Cook  discovers  route  up  Northeast  ridge 41, 42, 104, 105 

Cook  discovers  the  two  ridges  leading  to  North  and  South  Peaks, 

46, 109, 110 
Cook  first  reaches  summit  of  Mount  McKinley 52 


INDEX.  133 

PAQB 

Cook  first  tells  of  effects  of  rarefied  air  on  Mount  McKinley.  .48,  50,  111,  11 2 

Ck)ok  first  tells  of  intense  cold  on  Mount  McKinley 50, 112 

Cook  first  to  reach  Upper  McKinley  Glacier 44, 108, 109 

Cook  gives  first  account  of  mountaineering  points  of  route  up  Mount 

McKinley 48, 110 

Cook  gives  first  account  of  Northeast  ridge:  his  account  corroborated 

by  Browne  and  Stuck 40,  41, 42, 43, 104, 105, 106, 107 

Cook  Inlet 36, 37 

Cook-Land-Ice 65,  75 

Cook  made  first  ascent  of  Mount  McKinley 130 

Cook  makes  almost  solitary  observation  of  ice-blink  on  mountains, 

50,52,112,113 
Cook  observes  and  photographs  dark  sky  at  top  of  Mount  McKinley 

and  is  corroborated  by  Stuck 58,  59, 121, 122, 123, 124 

Cook  photographs  granite  rocks  of  Upper  McKinley  Glacier 44 

"Cook  ridge,"  Northeast  ridge  should  be  called 108 

Cook  travels  "Ught" 103 

Cook's  and  Stuck's  descriptions  and  photographs  of  summit  of  South 

Peak  compared 116, 117, 118 

Cook's  narrative 100 

Cook's  photograph  of  Mount  McKinley  and  Browne's  illustration  of 

Fake  Peak  compared 76-81 

Coolidge,  Dr.  W.  A.  B 107 

Critics  and  criticism 85 

Croz 24 

Denali 31, 67 

Denali's  wife 90 

Denial's  wife 76 

Denials  by  Archdeacon  Stuck 67, 87, 89-97 

Denials  by  climbers  of  Mount  McKinley 66,  72, 127 

Denials  by  inhabitants  of  Alaska 66,  72 

Denials  by  Mr.  Browne 67, 75, 85, 86 

Denials  by  Mr.  Edward  Barilla 72 

Denials  by  Mr.  Lloyd 67, 73, 74 

Denials  of  ascents  of  Mount  McKinley 66, 67 

Denials  of  ascents  of  Mount  McKinley  criticized 127 

Descent  of  Mount  McKinley 60, 61, 124 

Desecration  of  greatest  peak  in  North  America 67 

Diagram  of  Cook's  photograph  of  Mount  McKinley  and  Browne's 

illustration  of  Fake  Peak 79 

Dickens 102 

Dickey,  Mr.  W.  A 31 

Differences  between  Cook's  photograph  of  Mount  McKinley  and 

Browne's  illustration  of  Fake  Peak 76-81 

Donkin,  Mr 82 

Douglas,  Lord  Francis 24 


134  INDEX. 

rAoa 

Draper,  Dr.  John  William 65 

Drye  Mountain 116 

Dubi,  Dr.  Heinrich 18 

Dumas,  Alexandre 18 

E.,  61,  in  the  Kuen  Lun,  Ascent  of 12 

Earthquake  on  Mount  McKinley 61,  63, 124 

East  Antarctica 112, 113 

Empirical  denial  of  ascents 18, 19 

Encyclopedia  Britannica 88, 89 

Endurance  of  the  Lloyd  party.  Great  feat  of 114 

Engadine,  The 18 

English  Alpine  Club,  Formation  of 7 

"English  Dictionary,  The" 69 

Equipments  of  Cook,  Lloyd,  Browne  and  Stuck 38, 39, 99 

European  Alps,  The 8 

Eye-witnesses,  One  proof  of  ascents  are  statements  by 17, 20, 23, 24 

Fairbanks,  Alaska 36, 37, 73, 74 

Fairbanks  News  Miner,  Alaska 36, 95 

Fake  Peak 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84 

Fake  Peak,  Ascent  of 75 

Fall  from  Matterhorn  seen 24 

Finsteraarhorn,  Early  ascents  of 22 

First  ascent  of  Mount  McKinley  made  by  Cook 130 

First  ascents  compared  with  ascents  of  other  mountains 26 

First  ascents  compared  with  later  ascents  of  same  mountain 27, 28 

First  ascents.  Desire  to  make 8 

First  part  of  Cook's  ascent  of  Mount  McKinley  cannot  be  compared 

with  the  ascents  of  Lloyd,  Browne  and  Stuck 36, 37, 38, 102 

Preshfield,  Mr 18 

Gamser  Glacier 15 

Gaspards,  The  two 105 

Gerlache,  Captain  de 100 

Gersdorf,  von 17 

Giordano's  party 105 

Glacier  Pass 37 

Glacieres  or  Freezing  Caverns 12 

Glasses,  Dark 122 

Graham,  Mr.  W.  W 12, 13 

Graham's,  Mr.,  W.  W.,  ascent  of  Kabru  contested 12, 13 

Grand  Basin 45, 51, 59, 93, 122 

Grand  Teton,  Ascent  of 19 

Grande  Meije,  Attempts  on  the 27, 105 

Granite  rocks  at  Upper  McKinley  Glacier 44, 45, 108, 109 


INDEX.  135 

FAQB 

Grant,  General 66 

Greenland 100, 112 

Green  Mountain 116 

Green  snow 68 

Gribble,  Mr 18 

Gross  Glockner 68 

Gussfeldt,  Dr.  Paul 19 

Hadow,  Mr 24 

HaU,  Mr.  Carl 22 

Harper's  Monthly  Magazine 33, 123 

Harper's  Monthly  Magazine,  Illustration  of  top  of  Mount  McKinley 

in 123 

Harper,  Walter 37, 55 

Himalaya,  The 8, 10, 12, 112 

Holland,  Mr.  E.  Thurston 68 

Hotel  Aak,  Romsdal 21 

Hotel  Couttet,  Chamonix 24 

Hudson,  Mr.  Charles 24 

Ice-blink  in  the  Polar  regions 112, 113 

Ice-blink  seen  by  Cook  from  Mount  McKinley 50, 52, 91, 112, 113 

Ignorance  of  mountaineering  one  cause  of  disbelief  in  ascents 10 

Ignorance  of  natives  one  cause  of  disbelief  in  ascents 10, 11 

"Illiterate  Ph.  D.'s" 102 

Illustration  by  Browne  of  Fake  Peak  and  photograph  by  Cook  of 

Mount  McKinley  compared 76-81 

"Index,"  Browne's 84,85,86 

Indian  Survey,  The 12 

Jaun,  Johann 22 

Jealousy  one  cause  of  disbehef  in  ascents 10, 13 

Johnson,  Mr.  W.  H 12 

K2,  said  by  Archdeacon  Stuck  to  have  been  climbed  by  the  Duke 

of  the  Abruzzi 87, 88 

Kabru,  Ascent  of 12, 13 

Kantishna  country 37 

Kantishna  diggins,  Men  from  the 89, 90 

Karstens,  Mr.  Harry  P 37, 55 

Kuen-Lun,  The 12 

La  Voy,  Mr 49, 53, 81, 82, 96 

Land-blink 112, 113 

Langford,  Hon.  Nathaniel  P 19, 20 

Laquin  Joch,  The 14 

Leonardo  da  Vinci 85 


136  INDEX. 

PAGE 

Letter  of  Archdeacon  Stuck  in  The  Sun 88, 89 

Letter  of  Author  in  Tfie  Sun 87, 88 

Leuthold,  Jakob 22 

Literature  about  Mount  McKinley 33, 34 

Lloyd,  Denials  by  Mr 67, 73,  74 

Lloyd  made  second  ascent  of  South  Peak  and  first  ascent  of  North 

Peak 130 

Lloyd,  Mr.  Thomas passim 

Lloyd,  Proofs  of  Cook's  ascent  presented  by 73 

Lloyd  reaches  summits  of  South  Peak  and  North  Peak 52, 54, 114 

Lloyd,  Risks  taken  by 74 

Lloyd  travels  "heavy" 103 

Lloyd's  flagstaff 46, 54, 55, 56, 86, 114, 120 

Lloyd's  great  feat  of  endurance  in  reaching  twin  summits  on  two 

successive  days 114 

Lloyd's  narrative 101 

Longstaff,  Dr 12 

Lorentz,  Heinrich 22 

Lower  McKinley  Glacier passim 

Maquignaz 114 

Mathews,  Mr 18 

Matterhorn,  Attempts  on  the 27, 105 

Matterhorn,  Fall  from  the 24 

Matterhorngletscher,  The 24 

McGonagell,  Charles 36, 40, 46 

McKinley  Glacier,  Lower passim 

McKinley  Glacier,  Upper passim 

McKinley  Glacier,  Upper,  first  reached  by  Cook 44, 108, 109 

McPhee  Pass 37 

Medieval  logic 65, 75 

Meyer,  von 17 

Monrad-Aas,  Mr 13 

Montagnier,  Mr 18 

Mont  Blanc,  First  ascent  of 16, 17, 18 

Mont  Blanc  from  Chamonix,  Watching  cUmbers  of 23, 24 

Moore,  Mr.  A.  W 18, 19 

Morgan,  Mr 38 

Mount  Ararat 10 

Mount  Blackburn 112, 113 

Mount  Brooks 63 

Mount  Denial 65-95 

Mount  Denial,  Mount  McKinley  might  be  nicknamed 67, 76 

Mount  Foraker 76,  90, 92, 121 

Mount  Foraker,  View  from  Mount  McKinley  of 57, 121 

Mount  Hayes 52 

Mount  Logan 112 


INDEX.  137 

PAGE 

Mount  McKinley passim 

Mount  McKinley,  Ascent  of,  by  Dr.  Cook  accepted  for  three  years..  65 
Mount  McKinley,  Comparative  method  must  be  resorted  to,  to 

judge  claims  of  climbers  of 34,  35 

Mount  McKinley,  Cook  made  first  ascent  of 130 

Mount  McKinley,  Former   inaccurate  statement  by  author  about 

first  ascent  of 20 

Mount  McKinley,  highest  point  of  North  American  Continent 31 

Mount  McKinley,  its  history  and  native  names 31 

Mount  McKinley,  its  hearing  on  the  Polar  Controversy 97 

Mount  McKinley,  Literature  about 33, 34 

Mount  McKinley,  Successful  ascents  of 33,  34 

Mount  McKinley,  Twin  summits  of 33 

Mount  McKinley,  Unsuccessful  attempts  to  ascend 32, 33 

Mount  Saint  EUas 112 

Mount  Tacoma 101, 117 

Mount  Wrangell 112, 113 

Mountain  ascents  a  trivial  thing  to  men  in  general 8 

Mountain  ascents  of  interest  only  to  climbers 9 

Mountain  climbers'  proofs 7-29 

Mountain  drawing.  Best 83 

Mountain     historians    bound    to    investigate    ascents    of    Mount 

McKinley 32,  84, 129 

Mountain  historians,  QuaUfications  of 25, 26 

Mountaineering  a  sport  evolved  in  second  half  of  nineteenth  century  7 
Mountaineering  diflBculties  lacking  on  Mount  McKinley  except  on 

Northeast  ridge 48,  49, 110 

Mountaineering  points  of  route  up  Mount  McKinley  first  announced 

by  Cook 110 

Muldrow  Glacier,  name  used  by  Browne  and  Stuck  for  Lower 

McKinley  Glacier 37, 38 

My  Attainment  of  the  Pole 91 

Nadelhorn,  No  relics  found  on  second  ascent  of 23 

Names  of  Mount  McKinley,  Other 31 

Narratives  of  the  four  climbers  of  Mount  McKinley 100, 101, 102, 128 

Natives  of  mountain  countries  deny  ascents 10, 11 

New  2Jealands  Alps 8 

Newport  Mountain 116 

North  American  Continent 31, 32 

North  Peak  of  Mount  McKinley,  33,  34,  35,  41,  47,  54,  86,  93,  94,  95,  101, 

110, 114, 119, 120, 130 

North  Pole 72, 75 

North  Pole,  Ascent  of  Mount  McKinley  unrelated  to  discovery  erf. .  .32, 65 

Northeast  ridge passim 

Northeast  ridge,  best  route  up  Mount  McKinley,  discovered  and  first 
described  by  Cook 40,  41,  42, 104, 106, 107, 108 


138  INDEX. 


FAan 


Northeast  ridge,  Camps  on 37, 38, 39,  40, 44, 106, 107, 108 

Northeast  ridge,  Character  and  sharpness  of,  40,  41,  42,  43,  44,  45, 106,  107 

Northeast  ridge,  climbed  by  all  four  parties 40,  41,  42,  43, 104 

Northeast  ridge,  first  climbed  by  Cook 40,  42, 104, 108 

Northeast  ridge,  name  affixed  by  Cook 104 

Northeast  ridge  should  be  called  Cook  ridge 108 

Northeast  ridge,  steepness  of 41, 42, 43,  45, 107, 108 

Northeast  ridge,  Stuck  states  that  "the  Parker-Browne  party  put 

upon  the  ridge"  the  name 41, 104 

Norway 21 

Norwegian  blacksmith 22 

Observations  of  other  climbers  one  proof  of  ascents .25, 26 

Owen,  Mr.  W.  0 19 

Paccard,  Dr.  Frangois 16, 17, 18 

Packe,  Report  of  usual  pale  blue  sky  over  Sierra  Nevada  by  Mr. 

Charles 122 

Pandim 13 

Parallel  columns  consisting  mostly  of  quotations  from  narratives  of 

the  four  climbers  of  Mount  McKinley 36-63 

Parker,  Professor  Herschel  C 33,  36,  76,  81, 82,  87, 96, 97, 101, 116 

Parker's  thermometer 57 

Peary,  Admiral 100 

Permanent  snow  and  ice  on  mountains 55, 119 

Persons  denying  Cook's  ascent,  Two  sets  of 66 

Photograph  by  Cook  of  summit  of  Mount  McKinley  compared  with 

Browne's  illustration  of  Fake  Peak 76-81 

Photograph  by  Cook  of  summit  of  Mount  McKinley,  Original 123 

Photograph  by  Stuck  "Denah's  Wife  from  the  summit  of  Denali" 

shows  rocks  close  to  summit 119, 120 

Photographs  by  Cook  and  Stuck  of  summit  of  South  Peak  compared, 

116, 117, 118 

Photographs  by  Parker,  La  Voy  and  Browne 81, 82 

Photographs,  one  proof  of  ascents 29 

Piz  Roseg,  Ascent  of 18, 19 

Pizzo  d'AndoUa 11 

Pointe  des  Phnes 105 

Polar  regions 113 

Portienhorn,  Ascent  of 11, 12 

Portienhorn,  No  reUcs  found  on 23 

Pothole  Camp 36,  38, 40 

Priority  in  publication  of  narratives  of  Cook,  Lloyd,  Browne  and 

Stuck 129 

Proofs  of  ascents.  Three  classes  of 20 

Purple  snows,  Endless  fields  of 65, 68, 75 

Pyrenees,  The 122 


INDEX.  139 

PAGE 

Rarefied  air,  one  cause  of  disbelief  in  ascents 12 

Rarefied  air  on  Moxint  McKinley,  Severe  effects  of.. .  48,  49,  50,  51,  111,  112 

Rates  of  travel  of  Cook,  Lloyd,  Browne  and  Stuck 103, 104 

Rauthorn,  The 15 

Reilly,  Mr.  Adams 105 

Relics  left  by  climbers  of  Mount  McKinley 54, 55, 57, 86, 120 

Relics  left  by  climbers  one  proof  of  ascents 20, 21, 22, 23 

Review  of  Cook's  narrative  in  The  Alpine  Journal 69, 70, 71,  72 

Richmond 66 

Ridges  leading  to  South  and  North  Peaks 41, 46, 109, 110 

Ringgold,  Lieutenant  Commander 112, 113 

Rock  Steps 78, 80 

Rocks  found  by  Cook  at  sunmait  of  Mount  McKinley 54, 119 

Rocks  found  by  Lloyd  at  summit  of  Mount  McKinley 54,  73, 118, 119 

Rocks  photographed  by  Stuck  close  to  summit  of  Mount  McKinley,  119, 120 

Rocky  Mountains,  The 8, 101 

Romsdal,  Norway — 21 

Romsdalhom,  Ascent  of 21, 22 

Rope,  Use  of  Alpine 74, 75 

Ross,  Sir  James  Clark 112, 113 

Rossbodenhom,  The 15 

Rossbodenjoch,  Crossing  of  the 14, 15 

Rost,  Mr.  E.  C,  first  notices  differences  between  Cook's  photograph 

of  Moimt  McKinley  and  Browne's  illustration  of  Fake  Peak 81 

Rost,  Mr.  E.  C,  first  notices  rocks  close   to  summit   of    Mount 

McKinley  in  Stuck's  photograph  taken  at  the  top 119 

Rost,  Mr.  E.  C,    publishes   monograph  Mount   McKinley:    its 

bearing  on  the  Polar  Controversy 97 

Rubens 85 

Rubenson,  Mr 13 

Russians,  The 31 

Ruth  Glacier 33, 36,  75, 84,  85, 102 

Saas 14 

Saas  Thai 11 

Saint  Elias  group 90, 91, 112 

Sardinian  Ordnance  Survey 105 

Saussure,  de 16 

Schafloch,  The 12 

Scribner's  Magazine 34 

Season  of  year  one  cause  of  disbelief  in  ascents 14, 15, 16 

Seasons  of  year 91 

Second  and  later  ascents  harder  to  prove  than  first  ascents 27, 28, 29 

Sella,  Signor 82 

Shainwald,  Mr.  Ralph  L.,  makes  unsuccessful  attempt  to  ascend 

Mount  McKinley 33 

Sierra  Nevada,  Spain,  Sky  in 122 


140  INDEX. 


PAGE 


Similarity  in  reports  of  Cook,  Lloyd,  Browne  and  Stuck. 128, 129 

Simplon 14 

Skies  at  top  of  Mount  McKinley,  Cook  and  Stuck  both  report  dark,  58,  59, 

60, 121, 122, 123, 124 
Skies  at  top  of  Mount  McKinley,  Veracity  of  Cook  and  Stuck  proved 

by  their  observations  of  dark 124 

Sky  in  Sierra  Nevada,  Spain 122 

Snowshoes 74,  75 

South  Peak  of  Mount  McKinley,  33,  34,  41,  52,  55, 101, 109, 110, 114, 119, 

125, 130 

South  Pole 75 

South  Victoria  Land 113 

Spread  of  surface  of  Upper  McKinley  Glacier  discovered  and  an- 
nounced by  Cook 46, 47, 109, 110 

Stevenson,  Captain  James 19 

Stonemen 21, 22, 23 

Stuck,  Archdeacon  Hudson passim 

Stuck  admits  publishing  what  he  knew  was  a  mistake 89 

Stuck  asserts  it  is  impossible  to  follow  Cook's  course  from  the  descrip- 
tion in  To  the  Top  of  the  Continent 90,  92 

Stuck  asserts  Lloyd  did  not  ascend  South  Peak 95 

Stuck  asserts  Lloyd  discovered  route  up  Mount  McKinley 93, 94 

Stuck,  Denials  of  Cook  by 67,  87,  89, 90, 91,  92,  93 

Stuck,  Denials  of  Lloyd  by 67, 87,  94, 95 

Stuck  insists  Browne  and  Parker  did  not  reach  top  of  Mount  McKinley  67,  96 

Stuck,  Letter  in  The  Sun  to  author 88,  89 

Stuck  made  third  ascent  of  South  Peak 130 

Stuck,  not  well  acquainted  with  the  history  of  mountaineering 87 

Stuck,  not  acquainted  with  the  history  of  polar  exploration 91 

Stuck  proves  ascent  of  North  Peak  by  Lloyd 95 

Stuck  reaches  summit  of  South  Peak 53,  111 

Stuck  says  natives  of  Alaska  doubted  Lloyd's  ascent 93, 94 

Stuck  states  that  "the  Parker-Browne  party  put  upon  the  ridge"  the 

name  Northeast  ridge 41, 104 

Stuck,  the  most  interested  witness  of  all 87 

Stuck  travels  "heavy" 103 

Stuck's  and  Cook's  descriptions  and  photographs  of  summit  of  South 

Peak  compared 116, 117, 118 

Stuck's  narrative 101, 102 

Summit  of  Mount  McKinley,  Cook  finds  some  rock  at 54, 119 

Summit  of  Mount  McKinley,  Lloyd  finds  some  rock  at 54, 73, 118, 119 

Summit  of  Mount  McKinley,  Stuck  says  there  is  no  rock  above 

19,000  feet  on  South 55, 119 

Summit  of  Mount  McKinley,  Stuck  photographs  rocks  close  to  South, 

119, 120 

Susitna  river,  The 36 

Switzerland 10 


INDEX.  141 

PAGE 

Tanana,  The 58 

Tatum,  Mr.  Robert  G 37 

Taylor,  Billy 36,  60 

Tennally 31 

The  Ascent  of  Denali 34, 92, 99 

The  Conquest  of  Mount  McKinley 34,  76,  81, 86, 99 

The  Deadly  Parallel 31-63 

"The  End  of  the  Polar  Controversy" 75 

Thompson,  Mr.  W.  F.,  editor 36, 95 

Thoune,  Lake  of 12 

Times,  The  New  York 34,  36, 99 

To  the  Top  of  the  Coniinent 34, 69,  76, 89, 92, 99, 123 

Tokositna  River,  The 36 

Traleyka 31 

Treatise  about  mountain  climbers'  proofs  still  lacking 9, 10 

Tschingel,  Dr.  Coolidge's  dog 107 

Tucker,  Mr 76 

Tunnel  Camp 40, 46,  60, 107, 114 

Turner 83 

Tyndall,  John 59, 105 

Tyrol 10, 68 

Upper  McKinley  Glacier passim 

Upper  McKinley  Glacier,  Granite  rocks  at 44,  45, 108, 109 

Upper  McKinley  Glacier,  Great  spread  of  surface  of 46, 47, 109, 110 

Val  d' Antrona 11 

Values  in  mountain  photographs 78,  82 

Verification  of  first  ascents  by  comparisons 26 

Verification  of  second  or  later  ascents  by  comparisons 27, 28 

View  from  Mount  McKinley 56, 57, 120, 121 

View  from  Mount  McKinley  of  Mount  Foraker 57, 121 

Wahren,  Johann 22 

Walker,  General 12 

Walker,  Mr.  Horace 18, 19 

Wall  Street  Glacier 36 

West  Antarctica 100, 112 

Whymper,  Edward 68, 83, 105 

Wickersham,  Judge  James,  makes  first  attempt  to  ascend  Mount 

McKinley 32 

Willow  Camp 60 

Witnesses  called  on  in  reference  to  Cook's  ascent 66 

Wyoming 19 

Wild  rabbit 37 


142  INDEX. 


PAGE 


Yeld,  Mr.  George 69 

Yellowstone  National  Park,  The 19 

Yukon,  The 36, 58 

Zermatt 24 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN     INITIAL    FINE    OF    25    CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


^NiV.  05  CALtr.,  BERK. 

OCT  9  ,94,J         JAN24W8^9 
REC'D  LD 


«•»«' 


LD  21-2m-l,'33  (52m) 


'  "■ 

■     -                        '                            -                                                              y 

' 

369546 

• 

l 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  UBRARY 

